PDA

View Full Version : Tangerine 56J On Feebay



JoeHall
11-20-2014, 09:07 PM
Looks like another 56J on the chopping block. After the beat-down Frank A's took recently, not sure if this is a good season for selling 56Js. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Studebaker-Golden-Hawk-Golden-Hawk-Studebaker-1956-Golden-Hawk-/171547437865?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item27f1062b29&vxp=mtr

PackardV8
11-21-2014, 12:51 AM
Another nice car out of FL. It could be better served by more of the JDP professional presentation. Those who know will ask questions, but the four photos and skimpy information doesn't sell very strongly to the 99% who know only little or nothing about the '56J.

The 3.54 rear axle ratio is interesting. As we know, the 3.08 was standard with the TwinUltramatic. Wonder if the build sheet would indicate it was ordered as an option or added by a later owner?

As far as Frank's beautiful car taking a beat-down, that's one, a bit harsh, and two, just the way of fleabay and the old car world. The '56J is an acquired taste. Those of us who love them can't make everyone else value them as highly as we do.

Personally, I'd make room for either one of those two.

jack vines

studegary
11-21-2014, 02:07 PM
Very little description for the asking price.
The seller is not experienced on eBay. He has one purchase and no sales. He should have gotten someone to help with his listing.
It does already have at least the opening $20K bid.

Bob Andrews
11-21-2014, 03:28 PM
As far as Frank's beautiful car taking a beat-down, that's one, a bit harsh, and two, just the way of fleabay and the old car world. The '56J is an acquired taste. Those of us who love them can't make everyone else value them as highly as we do.

jack vines

Great post, and great point about certain cars being an acquired taste. But best of all is the sentence I have bolded. This is probably one of the least recognize truths in the entire collector car hobby- and even more so in the Studebaker world.

The people that learn and accept this universal truth are the ones that I find are most happy in the hobby.

sochocki
11-21-2014, 03:38 PM
Beautiful car . . . the color would be the deal breaker for me. Talk about subjective issues, paint/interior color can turn many people off of a car unless the price is a steal. Don't want to pay close to top dollar just to have to repaint/reupholster if I couldn't live with the color!!

JoeHall
11-21-2014, 04:46 PM
Great post, and great point about certain cars being an acquired taste. But best of all is the sentence I have bolded. This is probably one of the least recognize truths in the entire collector car hobby- and even more so in the Studebaker world.

The people that learn and accept this universal truth are the ones that I find are most happy in the hobby.

True, but 56Js usually do well in selling prices. I just wondered if maybe the economic times are holding folks back. I still cannot believe Frank A's car only reached the low 20s in bidding. I kinda thought it would raise the bar, as far as 56J prices go. It will be interesting to see how this car fares on ebay.

As for mid 1950s colors, I guess we either love them or hate them. Doeskin & mocha, as Frank's car is, was one of the most popular colors in 1956. When viewed with the naked eye, that combo is still mesmerizing to many. But it does not look as good in pix for some reason.
Tangerine & white was not nearly as popular, but certainly recaptures the era well. I recall a family owned a tangerine & white Power Hawk in my hometown in the late 1960s, same time when I owned the black 56J. Back then, that color combo did not seem as bold appearing as it does now.
As Jack V. said, I'd be glad to have either one of those cars parked in my garage.

Corvanti
11-21-2014, 04:56 PM
the color on the 56J in the OP just screams Florida (or most any beach) car!:!:

i'd love to have her crusing the beach here. unfortunately, my wallet is empty...

SN-60
11-21-2014, 06:21 PM
Back in 1963, a popular auto magazine, 'CAR LIFE' I believe, evaluated a few interesting Studebaker models, one of these was the '56 Golden Hawk. The editor said..."This model should be avoided, except as a museum piece". I really hate to drive home the point once again, but we need to face the reality that the 56J had some serious problems compared to the '57 version.....And anyone who is in a position to spend big bucks today for a Golden Hawk will probably do their homework...and gravitate towards the '57-'58 Studebaker engined version. THIS is the reason 56J prices will always lag behind...What was true in 1963 is still true today.
On a more positive note, I personally feel the small finned '56 Golden looks nicer than the '57 model....The large canted fins Studebaker tacked on in '57, and the round 'trailer type' tailights, really never flattered the clean lines of a Studebaker (K) hardtop.(IMHO):(

JoeHall
11-21-2014, 08:00 PM
Back in 1963, a popular auto magazine, 'CAR LIFE' I believe, evaluated a few interesting Studebaker models, one of these was the '56 Golden Hawk. The editor said..."This model should be avoided, except as a museum piece". I really hate to drive home the point once again, but we need to face the reality that the 56J had some serious problems compared to the '57 version.....And anyone who is in a position to spend big bucks today for a Golden Hawk will probably do their homework...and gravitate towards the '57-'58 Studebaker engined version. THIS is the reason 56J prices will always lag behind...What was true in 1963 is still true today.
On a more positive note, I personally feel the small finned '56 Golden looks nicer than the '57 model....The large canted fins Studebaker tacked on in '57, and the round 'trailer type' tailights, really never flattered the clean lines of a Studebaker (K) hardtop.(IMHO):(

I am not impressed by a 1963 rag editor's opinion, unless he was speaking from personal experience, which I doubt. As for museum piece, about 90 percent of folks buying a Hawk today, any Hawk, will do far more showing than going. So museum piece is a compliment today.

For the 10 percent who plan to seriously drive a Hawk today, whether 1956, 1964 or in between, they all need the same upgrades to be safe and dependable. That is mainly because they were designed for 1950s-60s roads, which do not exist today. Those upgrades include, but are not limited to: HD suspension, improved brakes, and modern gearing. A set of coil or leaf springs costs the same to purchase and install in any Hawk. Ditto for other upgrades. So it does not matter which Hawk a buyer chooses, if he's gonna seriously drive it, they all need the same upgrades.

It boils down to which Hawk a perspective buyer thinks looks coolest. Some, too, are intrigued by the wow factor of the original hot rod Hawk, and that will always be the 56J. All others came later. The 56J is kinda like a Vincent Black Shadow motorcycle; legendary, and many folks consider themselves lucky to ever actually see one in person. When folks compliment my 56J, I tell them, "Studebakers are rare, but this is a rare Studebaker", which pretty much says it all.

SN-60
11-21-2014, 08:17 PM
I am not impressed by a 1963 rag editor's opinion, unless he was speaking from personal experience, which I doubt. As for museum piece, about 90 percent of folks buying a Hawk today, any Hawk, will do far more showing than going. So museum piece is a compliment today.

For the 10 percent who plan to seriously drive a Hawk today, whether 1956, 1964 or in between, they all need the same upgrades to be safe and dependable. That is mainly because they were designed for 1950s-60s roads, which do not exist today. Those upgrades include, but are not limited to: HD suspension, improved brakes, and modern gearing. A set of coil or leaf springs costs the same to purchase and install in any Hawk. Ditto for other upgrades. So it does not matter which Hawk a buyer chooses, if he's gonna seriously drive it, they all need the same upgrades.

It boils down to which Hawk a perspective buyer thinks looks coolest. Some, too, are intrigued by the wow factor of the original hot rod Hawk, and that will always be the 56J. All others came later. The 56J is kinda like a Vincent Black Shadow motorcycle; legendary, and many folks consider themselves lucky to ever actually see one in person. When folks compliment my 56J, I tell them, "Studebakers are rare, but this is a rare Studebaker", which pretty much says it all.

I understand that you love this model Joe...and I think that they are one of the most interesting Studebakers ever built....A real attention getter on the show field...But Joe, if folks could see the major problems with the 56J in 1963...when it was only seven years old....Well, I think that fact alone tells us something today!

8E45E
11-21-2014, 08:17 PM
Tangerine & white was not nearly as popular, but certainly recaptures the era well.

Not sure if this is the same car or not... http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?8091-56-Tangerine-Peach&highlight=tangerine

Craig

JoeHall
11-21-2014, 08:31 PM
Ed, I also love GT Hawks, and have put over 200,000 miles on 56Js, but over 300,000 on GTs. There ain't much difference in repairs, scheduled maintenance, or handling, once they are set up to drive.

When I get out of the GT after a couple of weeks, and then get into the 56J, it always feels like I am in a dragster for the first few miles, till re-calibrate my gas pedal foot. The 352 has road power the 289 just cannot duplicate. Nor could my bro-in-law's 57GH, when we followed each other all over the country in them, for about 10 years :)

SN-60
11-21-2014, 08:42 PM
Ed, I also love GT Hawks, and have put over 200,000 miles on 56Js, but over 300,000 on GTs. There ain't much difference in repairs, scheduled maintenance, or handling, once they are set up to drive.

When I get out of the GT after a couple of weeks, and then get into the 56J, it always feels like I am in a dragster for the first few miles, till re-calibrate my gas pedal foot. The 352 has road power the 289 just cannot duplicate. Nor could my bro-in-law's 57GH, when we followed each other all over the country in them, for about 10 years :)

OK Joe, I defer to your experience.....Keep that good looking '56 Golden Hawk rolling!!:!!::!!::!!:

Andy R.
11-21-2014, 11:53 PM
WOW! I love that Tangerine color.
I remember seeing a (non-56J) Hawk at the Long Beach Int'l in that sizzling color. I had to squint until my eyes adjusted and once they did I must have orbited the thing a dozen times in wonder. (Granted, I was recovering from heavy revelry of the night before, but still!)

OE style wheel covers and whitewalls would really do wonders for this car.

SN-60
11-22-2014, 07:20 AM
I like the look of this e-bay Hawk, and it appears that it's equipped with power steering, which is a 'must' on this model. The owner has installed an Edelbrock carb in place of the original WCFB,......which isn't a bad way to go, but hopefully the original carb was left in the trunk. (There's a 56J up here in Massachusetts with this same Edelbrock carb setup, and the original carb IS still in the trunk!):)

56 Rando
11-22-2014, 12:37 PM
Hello, I rarely post to this forum but just couldn't let this go. As a 56-J owner for 28 years I fail to see the major problems with the car. I think Frank A. did a fine job of debunking the nose heavy myth of the 56-J in his article. It turns out the Packard engine is about 20lbs heavier than a Stude engine. With the supercharger added their about the same. I driven my car a lot over the years and never felt one time it was diving, over,under,whatever steering. Never felt it couldn't wait to go into a ditch. Never felt unsafe in the car. As a owner a say these stories are bunk and just untrue. I will say I've done a few things to improve the handling. I added a sway bar from a GT. New gas shocks all around. Rebuilt the Stude front suspension. Surprisingly I think the greatest improvement was when I replaced the rear springs with HD units. Ride and handling improved. Even with that giant, behemoth monster Packard under the hood, the rear springs were sagging not the fronts. Still has the original coils up front. I've driven a lot of Studes and can say that I don't feel much if any difference in the way they handle. I think if you do a little work you can have a fine driving, handling 56J. That Packard engine to me is a plus not a minus. The Studie engine is great but can't match the power and torque of a good running 352. Just my personal experience.

JoeHall
11-22-2014, 05:11 PM
I like the look of this e-bay Hawk, and it appears that it's equipped with power steering, which is a 'must' on this model. The owner has installed an Edelbrock carb in place of the original WCFB,......which isn't a bad way to go, but hopefully the original carb was left in the trunk. (There's a 56J up here in Massachusetts with this same Edelbrock carb setup, and the original carb IS still in the trunk!):)

Ed,
I agree on the PS. Wouldn't care to drive a 56J around the block without it.

The red car is beautiful, and looks like one that has a 5 speed Tremac in it, except his is a deeper red, IIRC. Also, I believe his has Cragars on it, or at least the last time I saw it. He lives in the northeast, but I cannot recall where.

JoeHall
11-22-2014, 05:25 PM
Hello, I rarely post to this forum but just couldn't let this go. As a 56-J owner for 28 years I fail to see the major problems with the car. I think Frank A. did a fine job of debunking the nose heavy myth of the 56-J in his article. It turns out the Packard engine is about 20lbs heavier than a Stude engine. With the supercharger added their about the same. I driven my car a lot over the years and never felt one time it was diving, over,under,whatever steering. Never felt it couldn't wait to go into a ditch. Never felt unsafe in the car. As a owner a say these stories are bunk and just untrue. I will say I've done a few things to improve the handling. I added a sway bar from a GT. New gas shocks all around. Rebuilt the Stude front suspension. Surprisingly I think the greatest improvement was when I replaced the rear springs with HD units. Ride and handling improved. Even with that giant, behemoth monster Packard under the hood, the rear springs were sagging not the fronts. Still has the original coils up front. I've driven a lot of Studes and can say that I don't feel much if any difference in the way they handle. I think if you do a little work you can have a fine driving, handling 56J. That Packard engine to me is a plus not a minus. The Studie engine is great but can't match the power and torque of a good running 352. Just my personal experience.

I agree Rando.
Sounds like your 56J has the 526125 (HD) front springs. About 2/3 of 56Js came with the lighter 526124 springs, which do allow the car to plow under, even on moderate turns.
There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason which cars came with 124s or 125s, e.g. with or without PS. The Production Orders do not specify either. I learned long ago to tell which a car has, just by the way it sits. The 124s sit an inch or two lower. With the 125s, it sits up nice and sturdy; add a 1963 and later, V8 front anti-sway bar kit, as you did, and it handles real nice.
I have swapped out several sets of 124s with 125s, for my 56Js, and for others'. I have scrounged a few sets, and also had a spring company in the mid-west, 'Coil Spring Specialties' repro them.
I believe if all 56Js had came with 125s, they may not have gotten such a rep for mushy front suspension, which many folks mistakenly attributed to the Packard motor.

A few year ago, I installed a set of MOOG CC655, modern, progressive rate springs in a GT Hawk. I liked them so well, installed another set in a second GT. Later, so impressed with them in both the GTs, I installed a set in the 56J. If you ever try a set in your 56J, I bet you will not go back to the 125s :)

SN-60
11-22-2014, 06:28 PM
Hello, I rarely post to this forum but just couldn't let this go. As a 56-J owner for 28 years I fail to see the major problems with the car. I think Frank A. did a fine job of debunking the nose heavy myth of the 56-J in his article. It turns out the Packard engine is about 20lbs heavier than a Stude engine. With the supercharger added their about the same. I driven my car a lot over the years and never felt one time it was diving, over,under,whatever steering. Never felt it couldn't wait to go into a ditch. Never felt unsafe in the car. As a owner a say these stories are bunk and just untrue. I will say I've done a few things to improve the handling. I added a sway bar from a GT. New gas shocks all around. Rebuilt the Stude front suspension. Surprisingly I think the greatest improvement was when I replaced the rear springs with HD units. Ride and handling improved. Even with that giant, behemoth monster Packard under the hood, the rear springs were sagging not the fronts. Still has the original coils up front. I've driven a lot of Studes and can say that I don't feel much if any difference in the way they handle. I think if you do a little work you can have a fine driving, handling 56J. That Packard engine to me is a plus not a minus. The Studie engine is great but can't match the power and torque of a good running 352. Just my personal experience.

The 1956 Golden Hawk is one of the most interesting Studebakers ever built....and that is of course because of the Packard engine. I have owned two of them myself, one of them, a standard shift job, I actually used as an everyday driver, summer and winter, for six years. This model is definitely nose heavy compared to the Studebaker engined version. This is not because the Packard V8 is all that much heavier than the Stude V8, (although it IS heavier), but rather the problem lies in the placement of the Packard V8 on the Studebaker chassis. With the Packard engine being longer than the Stude, and with the Packard engine itself pushed ahead 2-3" on the chassis (compared to the Stude V8 placement, the engines weight is actually pushed ahead 5" or so compared to where the Studebaker engines weight comes into play relative to the Studebaker chassis proper. I like these cars myself, but I'm a realist, and feel that newer members of SDC, who may be considering buying one of these, know what they are up against.
Mechanically, the Packard drivetrain was never sorted out...Period!!...Packard just didn't have time. The Packard engine's main problem was an oil pump that was not up to the job...it allows for collapsing hydraulic valve lifters on a hot engine,and, more serious, oil starvation at high RPM which tends to wipe the babbit off the main bearings...THIS ENGINE PROBLEM IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE TO ANYONE WHO HAS OWNED ONE OF THESE CARS!!!...The Packard Twin-Ultramatic transmission, unfortunately, was a disaster from day one!...Never up to the V8's torque, is suffered early failure, it's now very hard to find anyone who now knows how to properly repair these units, and an almost hopeless and very pricey replacement parts situation. Even the Packard club has sought alternate transmissions to use in their V8 powered cars. I really think these facts need to be put 'out there', before a 'newby' gets financially buried in one of these great looking cars! (IMHO)

Bob Andrews
11-22-2014, 06:53 PM
Ed, you must lead a very, very bored life.

SN-60
11-22-2014, 07:11 PM
Ed, you must lead a very, very bored life.

Not really BOBBY, but at least I lead an honest one!

SN-60
11-22-2014, 07:17 PM
Ed,
I agree on the PS. Wouldn't care to drive a 56J around the block without it.

The red car is beautiful, and looks like one that has a 5 speed Tremac in it, except his is a deeper red, IIRC. Also, I believe his has Cragars on it, or at least the last time I saw it. He lives in the northeast, but I cannot recall where.
Yes, that 56J is a beauty!...I believe its transmission is the Packard Twin-Ultramatic:(

56 Rando
11-22-2014, 11:40 PM
Hi Guys, Joe Thanks for the advice on the Moog coil springs. If I ever feel like the car needs them I will get a set. As for engine placement, I'm sure you're right SN-60. If it makes any difference In handling I just don't feel it. As I said my car doesn't plow, dive or any of those nasty things. I must be lucky I guess. As for the trans I know all about the Ultramatic shortcomings. Luckily for me I have the 3spd OD. Now I will say I don't have power steering and that would be nice to have. Even there though in normal driving situations the car handles well and is not a bear to steer. I do make sure I keep the front end well greased. Now parking and slow turns, backing up, those are hard on the arm muscles. I've added a 3.73 TT rear axle and the car just cruises along great at 60-65 mph at around 2000-2100 rpm. I 've heard a lot about the oil pump problems and again lucky I guess, my engine was rebuilt by the previous owner and I know they replaced the oil pump. In 30,000 plus miles of driving I've never heard the lifters rattling and my oil pressure is always good. Jeez I hope I don't jinx myself. Not trying to be argumentative just relaying some facts. Anyway that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

SN-60
11-22-2014, 11:49 PM
Hi Guys, Joe Thanks for the advice on the Moog coil springs. If I ever feel like the car needs them I will get a set. As for engine placement, I'm sure you're right SN-60. If it makes any difference In handling I just don't feel it. As I said my car doesn't plow, dive or any of those nasty things. I must be lucky I guess. As for the trans I know all about the Ultramatic shortcomings. Luckily for me I have the 3spd OD. Now I will say I don't have power steering and that would be nice to have. Even there though in normal driving situations the car handles well and is not a bear to steer. I do make sure I keep the front end well greased. Now parking and slow turns, backing up, those are hard on the arm muscles. I've added a 3.73 TT rear axle and the car just cruises along great at 60-65 mph at around 2000-2100 rpm. I 've heard a lot about the oil pump problems and again lucky I guess, my engine was rebuilt by the previous owner and I know they replaced the oil pump. In 30,000 plus miles of driving I've never heard the lifters rattling and my oil pressure is always good. Jeez I hope I don't jinx myself. Not trying to be argumentative just relaying some facts. Anyway that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

You're way ahead with a 3 speed O/D car, that's for sure!.... Yes, power steering would be nice in that baby, maybe a p/s setup will come up for sale......Happy motoring!:)

PackardV8
11-23-2014, 12:36 AM
Yes, the Packard V8 had some first year teething problems with the oiling system we've mostly learned to sort out. It was no different than the sainted small block and big block Chevys which had several problems solved by changes made in the first few years of production.

FWIW, I get the Automotive Engine Rebuilders Association monthly magazine and regular e-mail updates. Each issue has several problem areas identified with current engines by most every manufacturer and solutions therefor. It is not a perfect world in which we live and the Packard V8 was better than many, but certainly no worse than most other new designs.

jack vines

SN-60
11-23-2014, 08:16 AM
Yes, the Packard V8 had some first year teething problems with the oiling system we've mostly learned to sort out. It was no different than the sainted small block and big block Chevys which had several problems solved by changes made in the first few years of production.

FWIW, I get the Automotive Engine Rebuilders Association monthly magazine and regular e-mail updates. Each issue has several problem areas identified with current engines by most every manufacturer and solutions therefor. It is not a perfect world in which we live and the Packard V8 was better than many, but certainly no worse than most other new designs.

jack vines
Packard engineers had to be under a lot of pressure to uphold the fine reputation of their previous straight eights. (and TWELVES for that matter!) I would think that those Packard engineers (the 'Master Engine Builders', as they were called) were more upset than anyone their V8 was released to the public before it was thoroughly sorted out. Releasing that engine and transmission before they were ready cost Packard to lose much of its fine reputation, new car sales, and, unfortunately, loss of the '55-'56 auto buying publics confidence!:(
I'm not trying to re-create history here.....What I'm saying is the unfortunate truth.

JoeHall
11-23-2014, 10:59 AM
I am not sure about others' problems, but my 56J of the late 60s did not lead a sheltered life, at least in the 1-2 years I had it. I do not recall motor problems, but probably only drove it 5000-10,000 miles. It was a 3/OD, but OD never worked. It would not up-shift, but simply coast. Back then we called it a, "Georgia overdrive", and probably misused the term. The OD would likely be an easy fix now days.

The front & rear springs were toast in that car, even back then. I recall corkscrew spacers between the front coils (which were almost certainly 526124s). In trying to fix the rears, I still have a 2" scar on my knee, from trying to jack it high enough to install longer than OEM shackles. The jack slipped out and clipped my knee.

The headlights used to go off, and pop back on a few seconds later. I eventually figured out they would stay on, if high beams were not used. Now I know it was because the CB would not hold the extra amps for the hi beams.

I recall flooring it, at road speed, just before crossing a railroad track. The wheels began spinning when they hit the track, and the car nearly went sideways at 60-70 MPH, but I got it straightened out somehow. Its a thousand wonders I did not get killed with that car, for one reason or another.

The current 56J, now owned 28 years and 157,000 miles, ran the same oil pump it had when I got it, till about 14,000 miles ago. I then installed an Olds pump, but mainly because all the kool kids were doing it over on the Packard V8 Forum.
At 238,000 total miles now (81,000 when I bought it), it still has the original motor, though rebuilt twice. When I first got the car, I spoke to the PO who drove it in college during the 1960s; she said it was rebuilt in the late 60s; it appeared to have only been around 5000 miles, when I first got it and removed the heads and oil pan for a look-see. It now has about 95,000 on my 1997 rebuild, but I reused the .030" pistons from the 1960s. I plan to rebuild again when it hits 100,000. When I installed the Olds pump, I checked the mains and they were OK, but most of the rod bearings were toast, so I replaced them. The crank is currently 10/10 under size.

I installed PS, and swapped the UltraMatic over to 3/OD, and 3.31, TT rear end, within the first 1000 miles of owning the car.

SN-60
11-23-2014, 11:08 AM
The problems with the Packard are well sorted out now. Don't be discouraged because one or two members can't do the research and figure this out. Them reporting on owning one in the 60's when the fixes were not all what they are today. Once you feel the brute torque of the Packard V8 you won't want to go back. It is truly astounding when you can take a stock vehicle and floor it out of overdrive around 50mph and burn rubber 'till 80!!!! My 3rd one would do that. I have owned 4 and they are truly an extra special vehicle. On par with an R3 in performance.

Wow Bez, I know it bothered you to lose the '56J 'Batwing' controversy, (see "Need Batwing Advice" in tech talk).....but now you're saying that a 1956 Golden Hawk can give performance equal to an R3 equipped Avanti or Lark???? All I can say is you must be talking about 1956 Golden Hawks which are very much different in performance AND reliability than the ones that left the Studebaker factories in 1956!!!!!!!:whome:

SN-60
11-23-2014, 12:53 PM
Actually it was concerning one that is all sorted out to todays capabilities. (P.S. I was right on the batwing)
some of us outlived the 1960'sand also listened to the teacher when she was discussing reading comprehension skills.

OK, Brad my friend,.....WHATEVER YOU SAY!!!!:lol::lol::lol:

Guido
11-23-2014, 01:08 PM
I am glad this is an Internet forum and I don't have to interact with these people on a personal level...

bezhawk
11-23-2014, 01:33 PM
If it makes you happier I deleted my posts. I will in the future refrain from commenting on peoples criticisms. I will sit back and let them bash whatever and whomever in the name of political correctness.

I have never bullied.... or been banned from any forum if that is of any consequence to you.

Bob Andrews
11-23-2014, 01:59 PM
Not really BOBBY, but at least I lead an honest one!

Lol. I just was referring to your nitpicking dead horses for no real reason. I get it, you hate Packard engines and you want to hurt anybody that has anything good to say about them. But in spite of that, people are still going to like and want these cars.

Whatever floats yer boat, guess.

SN-60
11-23-2014, 02:02 PM
Lol. I just was referring to your nitpicking dead horses for no real reason. I get it, do you hate Packard engines and you want to hurt anybody that has anything good to say about them. Whatever floats yer boat, guess.

No problem Bob,.....And have a happy Thanksgiving week!

JoeHall
11-23-2014, 02:02 PM
Hi Guys, Joe Thanks for the advice on the Moog coil springs. If I ever feel like the car needs them I will get a set. As for engine placement, I'm sure you're right SN-60. If it makes any difference In handling I just don't feel it. As I said my car doesn't plow, dive or any of those nasty things. I must be lucky I guess. As for the trans I know all about the Ultramatic shortcomings. Luckily for me I have the 3spd OD. Now I will say I don't have power steering and that would be nice to have. Even there though in normal driving situations the car handles well and is not a bear to steer. I do make sure I keep the front end well greased. Now parking and slow turns, backing up, those are hard on the arm muscles. I've added a 3.73 TT rear axle and the car just cruises along great at 60-65 mph at around 2000-2100 rpm. I 've heard a lot about the oil pump problems and again lucky I guess, my engine was rebuilt by the previous owner and I know they replaced the oil pump. In 30,000 plus miles of driving I've never heard the lifters rattling and my oil pressure is always good. Jeez I hope I don't jinx myself. Not trying to be argumentative just relaying some facts. Anyway that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Hi Rando,
The MOOGs do not out perform the 125s, but really smooth little bumps, i.e. concrete joints on the interstate, and firm up quickly in the twisties. The 125s and MOOGs are both very hard to bottom out, which is a good thing. But I have torn down 56Js with 124s, that had bottomed out so many times over the years, the lower rubber jounce had all but disintegrated, and bent the frame rail lip. The gravel shields usually fared worse on those cars too.
Sounds like yours is set up well, and handles nice. Though yours' standard steering may be a pain at times, it drops 50-60 pounds off the driver side, another good thing :)

As mentioned before, I have no idea why every 56J did not come with 125s.

SN-60
11-23-2014, 02:18 PM
[QUOTE=JoeHall

As mentioned before, I have no idea why every 56J did not come with 125s.[/QUOTE]

That's probably because Studebaker engineers didn't see the need to 'beef up' the front end of 56J's until the customers complaints started filtering in. At that point, Studebaker realized it had a problem on its hands.

JoeHall
11-23-2014, 02:58 PM
That's probably because Studebaker engineers didn't see the need to 'beef up' the front end of 56J's until the customers complaints started filtering in. At that point, Studebaker realized it had a problem on its hands.

Ed,
There may be something to that. Two 56Js come to mind that I know had 125s, and both were very high production numbered cars. One was a SB car with a 3000+ number, and one from LA with a 500+ number.

SN-60
11-23-2014, 03:39 PM
Ed,
There may be something to that. Two 56Js come to mind that I know had 125s, and both were very high production numbered cars. One was a SB car with a 3000+ number, and one from LA with a 500+ number.

Not that it has anything to do with the coil spring issue....but my 'six year' 56J was an early car....#6030610, with stick O/D engine# K-1021 (twenty first stick engine!), power steering, and NO power brakes (The perfect 56J?)...Odd colors I always thought ...Cambridge Gray/Snowcap White.:)

56 Rando
11-23-2014, 09:26 PM
Hi Guys, My car has an early serial # I guess, 6030510, Body#749. I imagine you must be right Joe, it must have the 125 coil springs, cause as I say I've owned it 28 years and not sagging or bottoming yet. So who knows about the springs> I have the original production order and no mention of HD springs? As to the power steering I would love to find a setup for my car but I think chances are slim to none. I do have a couple complete setups from a GT and a Lark with the much maligned "bag of snakes" PS. Problem is I don't believe either pitman arm will work with the Ross steering gear. Has anybody successfully adapted one of the later systems to a early Hawk? I know I would need to rebuild the entire system and new hoses, but is there a pitman arm out there that will allow this to happen? I thought I remember reading somewhere that someone with a 56 Skyhawk had used a later system on his car.

SN-60
11-23-2014, 09:46 PM
Hi Guys, My car has an early serial # I guess, 6030510, Body#749. I imagine you must be right Joe, it must have the 125 coil springs, cause as I say I've owned it 28 years and not sagging or bottoming yet. So who knows about the springs> I have the original production order and no mention of HD springs? As to the power steering I would love to find a setup for my car but I think chances are slim to none. I do have a couple complete setups from a GT and a Lark with the much maligned "bag of snakes" PS. Problem is I don't believe either pitman arm will work with the Ross steering gear. Has anybody successfully adapted one of the later systems to a early Hawk? I know I would need to rebuild the entire system and new hoses, but is there a pitman arm out there that will allow this to happen? I thought I remember reading somewhere that someone with a 56 Skyhawk had used a later system on his car.
56 Rando,...If you have a complete power steering system from a GT Hawk, it will fit your '56 Golden perfectly if you are willing to replace the stock 1956 Golden Hawk steering column and steering wheel with the later GT Hawk parts. The biggest visual difference from 'stock' would be the later GT steering wheel, but if you don't care for the look of a stock GT Hawk steering wheel in your car, adapters are readily available to install almost any of the custom steering wheels that are available. Installed correctly, and with all parts in good shape, the later 'bag of snakes' Bendix system steers very nicely. Many of the Bendix parts from the Lark p/s system that you have can also be used, excepting for the steering 'reach rod' (or drag link), and the Lark steering box and column itself.
The only custom part that would have to be fabricated is a bracket to adapt the later Bendix power steering pump to the Packard V8 engine....this bracket should not be very hard to make up.....Good luck with this interesting and rewarding project!!:!!:

PackardV8
11-23-2014, 10:15 PM
Hi Guys, As to the power steering I would love to find a setup for my car but I think chances are slim to none.

PM me, as I've got most of a '56J PS unit.

jack vines

56 Rando
11-24-2014, 12:17 PM
SN-60 Thanks for the info on the GT steering. Unfortunately I don't have the steering column or the box. Anyway I really like the look of that big, white steering wheel in my car. I'd really like to keep that. If I can't find a system that will work with my existing parts I guess I'll just have to drive it as is, and do more pushups I guess.

SN-60
11-24-2014, 05:43 PM
SN-60 Thanks for the info on the GT steering. Unfortunately I don't have the steering column or the box. Anyway I really like the look of that big, white steering wheel in my car. I'd really like to keep that. If I can't find a system that will work with my existing parts I guess I'll just have to drive it as is, and do more pushups I guess.

You're entirely welcome!:)....About that GT Hawk power steering idea....Locating a power steering column and gearbox from a '57-'64 Hawk or GT Hawk should not be very difficult....and with a custom adapter, I can see that big, white '56 steering wheel attached to the top of that '57-'64 column! (Just an idea...but you do have most of the parts already)

studegary
11-25-2014, 01:27 PM
Looks like another 56J on the chopping block. After the beat-down Frank A's took recently, not sure if this is a good season for selling 56Js. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Studebaker-Golden-Hawk-Golden-Hawk-Studebaker-1956-Golden-Hawk-/171547437865?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item27f1062b29&vxp=mtr

I do not understand your statements of "chopping block" and "beat down". An eBay listing results in what TODAY'S market will spend for a particular car.
I bid on Frank's car. I do not know if you did. In any event, neither of us, or anyone else, reached whatever reserve that Frank had placed on his car.
Many here like to place high "values" on Studebakers, particularly cars that they own, but the market is not currently supporting these high prices.

jbwhttail
11-26-2014, 05:40 PM
There is a harsh reality that ALL studebaker owners must accept........ They don't make them anymore and most people on top of the turf don't remember them on the streets!

We are all getting older and the people who are interested in these cars are shrinking by the day. Yes the 1957 Golden Hawk, 1953 hardtop and Avanti will always have a reasonable value but, others will fall. I sold a 1963 R2, 4 speed number matching Daytona this spring at a premium price, the person who purchased it was 72 years old!

What each Studebaker owner must ask themselves is....."Is this an investment or a toy?" If you wanted to make money that window has probably closed. If it is a toy........ drive, trailer, store it AND enjoy it!

For years I have been here, and read of all the "CASO" Studebaker owners, who keeps the Studebkaer prices down? Looks like to me it is the Studebaker owners, they want to get a "premium" for their cars and yet buy at "scrap price" for any available cars. You can't have it both ways......LOL.

On Ebay:

56J can't get 20,000.00 bidd

1963 R2 Gt can't get over 25K

1936 Dictator frame off restoration can't get 25K bid

I like pictures of dead presidents...... And Studebakers are not going to add to the number of pictures anytime soon.

By the way, I'm still looking for the Ebay "steal"........

8E45E
11-26-2014, 06:23 PM
By the way, I'm still looking for the Ebay "steal"........

Sorry.........You missed it! http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?68234-64-Hawk-on-ebay-could-be-a-deal&highlight=black+supercharger

Craig

56 Rando
11-26-2014, 06:36 PM
I couldn't agree more Stanwood, I got my first Stude in 1973 when I was 16. a 53 Starliner hardtop in decent shape, no less! Man, the abuse I took from my "friends". Why would you want that junk? Stupidbaker,Ha ha ha! All that kind of jazz. I said< I dunno " I just like it". More laughter. Get a real car will ya. Of course they meant Ford or Chevy. Back then it was all Mustangs, Camaro's Malibu's,Cuda's and such. I just liked my 53 hardtop and nobody could understand. Now, totally different, My 56J or my Daytona, or even to a lesser extent my champ truck all get thumbs up. I take one to a show and people will tell me what a nice car(or truck) I have and how advanced Studebakers were. I say if they were so advanced,why didn't they sell more cars? They just look at me. I don't believe our cars will ever get near the prices other cars get. My 56J if it was a corvette or T-Bird in comparable shape would probably get 50-60 thousand maybe more. I know I'd be dreaming to think I'd ever get close to that for mine. But what I really like is driving them. They are all good running vehicles and I try to keep them that way. The good side to the values is, you can buy a nice Studebaker and not have a fortune invested.

Corvanti
11-26-2014, 07:07 PM
the OP "Tangerine" is back up on Ebay. $20K to start - a $30K BIN: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Studebaker-Golden-Hawk-Golden-Hawk-Studebaker-1956-Golden-Hawk-/171557052822?forcerrptr=true&hash=item27f198e196&item=171557052822&pt=US_Cars_Trucks

if someone already mentioned that, sorry!

ddub
11-26-2014, 07:45 PM
I notice the seller is a newbie. I think finding someone like JDP to help him with the listing would have been a good idea.

SN-60
11-26-2014, 07:54 PM
the OP "Tangerine" is back up on Ebay. $20K to start - a $30K BIN: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Studebaker-Golden-Hawk-Golden-Hawk-Studebaker-1956-Golden-Hawk-/171557052822?forcerrptr=true&hash=item27f198e196&item=171557052822&pt=US_Cars_Trucks

if someone already mentioned that, sorry!

In looking at the pics, I think this GH would really benefit from the addition of a set of wide whitewall tires (IMHO)

SN-60
11-29-2014, 11:35 AM
This Hawk seems to sit very low at the left rear...I wonder if there's a problem with the leaf spring, or perhaps it's just parked on an uneven surface? No bids yet.:(