UGH: Reality Sets In

[BobPalma]

We sometimes don't realize how rare Studebakers are.

In doing research for my up-coming December 2015 Hemmings Classic Car column, I had occasion to tally up total Edsel production for all three model years they were built, combined: 110,847 cars.

In contrast, ALL the Studebaker Hawks ever built, including oddities like export Gran Turismo Hawks with six-cylinder engines and export 1957 Silver Hawk hardtops, adds up to only 79,032 cars.

So the next time you see any Edsel, know that it is more common than any Studebaker Hawk. BP

[TWChamp]

That really surprises me. I would have thought many more Hawks than that were built.

[Dick Steinkamp]

Unfortunately, "unpopular" might be a better word than "rare". Not to US of course, but I'm sure Studebaker would have sold more Hawks if there were more buyers.

Interesting statistic.

[Lou Van Anne]

Ya..., but the Hawk is a much better "looker".

[Jessie J.]

What I recall was how aware every auto enthusiast in the '50 and '60s was that the Hawk line was just the '53 design that got uglyfied in '55, and then those 'damnable fins were tacked on'. and the notoriously flexible 'wet noddle' chassis.This negative image was further exacerbated by those produced with the woefully antiquated and underpowered six cylinder. Not my opinion, but I heard these comments in hundreds of variations from my contemporaries. They simply weren't 'buying' what Studebaker was attempting to sell in the 'performance' end of the market.
Now we who are Stude enthusiasts know that great performing combinations were available, and certainly could be ordered, but unfortunately ordering such was often strongly discouraged both by most dealerships, as well as by a total sticker price that by far exceeded that of the performance offerings of competing makes, with resale values that tended to drop faster than anything else on the automotive market.
Even today it is still hard to 'unload' a Hawk at a price that is anywhere near comparable to that of one of the other makes '60s high-performance models.

[kurtruk]

I mentioned Edsel production numbers last month in this thread: http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...?89941-Edsel-s
Guess my numbers were off...

EDIT: On second look, if you include the cars sold in Canada (4,935 in '58, 2,505 in '59) which I did we get about the same number: 118,287. Cars sold in Canada do count, don't they?

[Jessie J.]

Once, back in 1964 I had the opportunity to buy a running, solid, and fully loaded red & white '58 Edsel convertible for the princely sum of $50.
Unfortunately, at the time I didn't even have $5.

[BobPalma]

I mentioned Edsel production numbers last month in this thread: http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...?89941-Edsel-s
Guess my numbers were off...

EDIT: On second look, if you include the cars sold in Canada (4,935 in '58, 2,505 in '59) which I did we get about the same number: 118,287. Cars sold in Canada do count, don't they?

Interesting, Kurt: I believe those Canadian sales are included in the 110,847 production figure.

I say this because the 110,847 figure was arrived at by adding up the three-year production totals quoted in the huge, authoritative 1962 Automotive News Almanac, a copy of which I have had for many years and reference often. Too, the 110,847 figure is confirmed in The Standard Catalog of American Cars, Fourth Edition. One should not take The Standard Catalog as gospel because it has its share of errors, but when its figures are verified by the industry standard, Automotive News, I believe them.

To the best of my knowledge, then, I'd say the 110,847 includes Edsels sold in Canada. (The 110,847 figure only documents how many cars were produced, not where they were sold.)

BTW: I've just signed off on my proof of the December 2015 Hemmings Classic Car column and think those of you here on the forum will thoroughly enjoy it. Hemmings Editor Richard Lentinello said it was "excellent." We'll see who is first on the forum to properly identify the specific car in the column's photograph, since I am responsible for furnishing the photograph(s) used in the column, and the one I submitted was used. (The December 2015 Hemmings Classic Car should start arriving in subscriber mailboxes around October 10.) BP

[Sdude]

BTW: I've just signed off on my proof of the December 2015 Hemmings Classic Car column and think those of you here on the forum will thoroughly enjoy it. Hemmings Editor Richard Lentinello said it was "excellent."

I'm sure I will enjoy it as I usually do. I love Hemmings Classic car but I especially like the BP editions.

[8E45E]

I mentioned before (here for example http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...ate-in-History ), insiders at Ford actually wanted the Edsel to fail, using lower than anticipated sales figures as a reason.

Craig

[showbizkid]

That's not really surprising... there are factions within every big company that have a distaste, either hidden or displayed, for any type of new undertaking. Sad when that turns to outright antipathy, though. The '60 Edsel was actually a very nice take on the '60 Ford big body. Given a full sales season, it might have proved a turnaround - or not. The name was likely too damaged by then.

[studegary]

John Bridges' book has 79,620 as the total number of Hawks. I wonder where the difference in numbers exists.
I think that I answered my own question - the difference in numbers is 588, the exact number of Packard Hawks, so your number is Studebaker Hawks and my number is S-P Hawks.

[BobPalma]

John Bridges' book has 79,620 as the total number of Hawks. I wonder where the difference in numbers exists.
I think that I answered my own question - the difference in numbers is 588, the exact number of Packard Hawks, so your number is Studebaker Hawks and my number is S-P Hawks.

That's correct; Gary. My count did not include Packard Hawks. BP

[warrlaw1]

BP doing research at the PSMCDRs. See you on the week-end!

[BobPalma]

I mentioned before (here for example http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...ate-in-History ), insiders at Ford actually wanted the Edsel to fail, using lower than anticipated sales figures as a reason. Craig

'Sounds suspiciously like "insiders" at Studebaker after the production shift to Hamilton effective January 1, 1964, eh, Craig? Do we detect a pattern, here? BP