PDA

View Full Version : What's wrong with this ad?



clonelark
12-07-2014, 05:41 PM
http://www.studebaker-info.org/Dealers/CapitolSanJoseCA1963a.jpg

Gunslinger
12-07-2014, 05:52 PM
Weren't '64s all having four headlights? I'm not that familiar with them but I know '65-'66s reverted back to two headlights...in most cases if not all. The standup Studebaker hood ornament is a '65-'66 thing as well, isn't it?

clonelark
12-07-2014, 05:57 PM
The ornament is correct, two headlights were correct.

stude dude
12-07-2014, 06:19 PM
Its not a Challenger....its a Commander!

Chris.

rkapteyn
12-07-2014, 06:36 PM
A Challenger was the stripped model , not fully factory equipped.

clonelark
12-07-2014, 06:39 PM
Bingo stude dude. it wasn't really that hard for anyone with a 64 Challenger.

StudeRich
12-08-2014, 05:17 PM
On '64 Commanders and Challengers 4 Headlights were optional, never saw a Challenger with them.
Challengers have no hood ornament, front and rear Glass Mouldings or body side mouldings Std. they would have to be special ordered.

Four Headlights were only Standard on Daytona and Cruiser.

'65's all have 4 Headlights.

'66's all have 2 Headlights.

8E45E
12-08-2014, 06:20 PM
On '64 Commanders and Challengers 4 Headlights were optional, never saw a Challenger with them.
Challengers have no hood ornament, front and rear Glass Mouldings or body side mouldings Std. they would have to be special ordered. Four Headlights were only Standard on Daytona and Cruiser.

On Challengers, one could have ordered option #84 Appearance Kit, which included the hood ornament and front & rear windshield/window mouldings.

Four headlights were also standard on the 1964.5 Commander Special model.

Craig

Stu Chapman
12-08-2014, 06:26 PM
Weren't '64s all having four headlights? I'm not that familiar with them but I know '65-'66s reverted back to two headlights...in most cases if not all. The standup Studebaker hood ornament is a '65-'66 thing as well, isn't it?

Only 66 models had two headlights; 65s continued with four.

Stu Chapman

Stu Chapman
12-08-2014, 06:31 PM
On Challengers, one could have ordered option #84 Appearance Kit, which included the hood ornament and front & rear windshield/window mouldings.

Four headlights were also standard on the 1964.5 Commander Special model.

Craig

Craig is correct. However Challengers were only manufactured and sold in the United States, not in Canada. I tend to agree with stude dude...the car illustrated certainly looks like a Commander. Thank goodness I wasn't responsible for that ad. Mind you, many advertisers often added the qualifier "not exactly as illustrated". I couldn't see any such copy in this ad.

Stu Chapman

raprice
12-08-2014, 06:37 PM
Wow, what a wealth of knowledge!!!

Rog

SN-60
12-08-2014, 06:44 PM
WOW!...I'm heading for CAPITOL STUDEBAKER today!

clonelark
12-08-2014, 09:35 PM
55.73 x 36 = 2006.28, that's more than they paid for the PBR and it was a V-8. I'm sure this is for a 6 cyl. the ad didn't say V-8 or 6.

BobPalma
12-08-2014, 09:46 PM
You guys think Bait & Switch using a Commander is bad...how about using a Daytona?

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/64studes1629.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/BobPalma/media/64studes1629.jpg.html)

Son O Lark
12-09-2014, 05:57 AM
If it was in Indiana, the ad would be false because no dealerships are open on Sunday. I don't know if it was true in the sixties though.

clonelark
12-09-2014, 06:32 AM
If it was in Indiana, the ad would be false because no dealerships are open on Sunday. I don't know if it was true in the sixties though.

Probably more true in the 60s than today.

Studebakers were much cheaper in Indiana than California. 2006.28 vs.1629.00=377.28 quite a savings in the 60s. roughly 23.5%, now that's a bargain.

Skybolt
12-09-2014, 08:37 AM
I see the main problem with the ad. It was I was not there to take advantage of it. Even if they gave me the fully loaded Commander instead of the Challenger. Of course I would point out their mistake and want both.

Len.

BShaw
12-09-2014, 09:11 AM
You guys think Bait & Switch using a Commander is bad...how about using a Daytona?

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/64studes1629.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/BobPalma/media/64studes1629.jpg.html)

This ad content suggests that the auto dealer advertising approach really hasn't changed much over the last 50 years. :woot:

8E45E
12-09-2014, 09:14 AM
This ad content suggests that the auto dealer advertising approach really hasn't changed much over the last 50 years. :woot:

Except today, they use Photoshop instead of literal 'cut & paste' for images!!

Craig

JEWELL
12-09-2014, 09:14 AM
You guys think Bait & Switch using a Commander is bad...how about using a Daytona?

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/64studes1629.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/BobPalma/media/64studes1629.jpg.html)

Hey BP, wonder what this dealer was selling after 1966. Ad says "We're staying in business"

BobPalma
12-09-2014, 09:26 AM
Hey BP, wonder what this dealer was selling after 1966. Ad says "We're staying in business"

Ironically, Mark; I had an odd happening about twelve years ago on the south side of Indianapolis. I had gone to investigate a Gran Turismo Hawk for sale. The seller was the son of the Studebaker Indianapolis Sales Manager who wrote that very ad. He called his Dad, the guy who wrote the above ad, and had him come down the street to talk to me, since they lived on the same block.

He remembered that ad and about fell over when I told him I had a copy of it. He said that a group of investors, for whom he worked, had bought the bones of Studebaker Indianapolis, a former factory store, from Studebaker. They ran it as a business to intentionally lose money while Studebaker was winding down production in Hamilton.

Then they changed the name to Meridian Motors and ran a used car lot there for several years until, I guess, they had lost all the money they needed to bleed off whatever loss they were trying to post for tax purposes.

A strange story, but I had no reason to doubt the gentleman. ;) :cool: BP

Bob Andrews
12-09-2014, 11:47 AM
He said that a group of investors, for whom he worked, had bought the bones of Studebaker Indianapolis, a former factory store, from Studebaker. They ran it as a business to intentionally lose money while Studebaker was winding down production in Hamilton.

Then they changed the name to Meridian Motors and ran a used car lot there for several years until, I guess, they had lost all the money they needed to bleed off whatever loss they were trying to post for tax

This is intriguing to me. I've never understood how that works-intentionally losing money to save on taxes. It doesn't make sense to my uneducated mind.

it reminds me of people I know that could pay off their mortgage but do not because they "want the tax write off". They will gladly pay, say, $10,000 in interest to the bank to save giving the government $3500 in taxes.

My race team owner does the same thing buy stuff for which she has no need to "get the tax write off". There's another local friend that buys something expensive in December, like a new truck or something, because he "has to for tax purposes". Yet, when I ask them to explain how that works, they never have an answer just that "their accountant said to".

I guess I will find out when I become rich enough that I have to blow money to save on taxes :-)