PDA

View Full Version : 1940 K10 Fast Transport Express



YogiBear
03-10-2016, 07:31 AM
Hello all,

I have the chance to acquire a 1940 K10 from an elderly family member. Attached should be a few pictures. I apologize for the poor quality. I should be able to get better ones in a few weeks.

There's not much information on these trucks, but from what I found these are relatively "rare" with only a handful of known examples left. This K10 has an unknown bed from another truck and a 2 Ton Weaver Auto Crane. Its former life was as a tow truck. She has sat since the late 70's unmolested.

Can anyone place a value on what they think the truck is worth?

Thank you for your time!

5218352184521855218652187

LeoH
03-10-2016, 08:36 AM
Wow. So, for the viewers I ask, what was the size of the Big Six engine before the Commander 245. I assume that's what six cylinder this is as it looks different than the Commander Six. Very impressive looking.

dictator27
03-10-2016, 09:07 AM
The Big 6 was 226 ci in 1940. As used in the K10, horsepower was 75.

Terry

Skip Lackie
03-10-2016, 09:30 AM
Good find and nice truck. From the Stude truck history on the main SDC website:
"A new model, the K10 Fast-Transport, was introduced for 1938. The Fast-Transport was a 1-ton truck that was available with a wide, steel-floored, flat-sided “Express” pickup body not unlike the Styleside and Fleetside pickup boxes that became available in the 1950s. In January 1938, a Custom Panel body was introduced for the K10 Fast Transport. Like other Studebaker truck models, the K10 was also available with a stake body, as a cab and chassis, or as a cowl/chassis unit (the latter designated as the A1 model). The K10 came only on a 130-inch wheelbase. The engine line-up remained unchanged from 1937, except that the displacement of the Studebaker Commander 6 that was installed in K10 and K15 models was increased to 226 ci, yielding 90 hp. Serial number plates were in the same locations as on J-series trucks."

Coupe Express
03-10-2016, 10:32 AM
I purchased a 1940 K10 with a standard be in January for $2800. From your pictures, I'd say the condition of the one your are looking at is about the same as mine. If you decide to pass, let me know becasue I would be interested.

PackardV8
03-10-2016, 12:46 PM
I purchased a 1940 K10 with a standard be in January for $2800. From your pictures, I'd say the condition of the one your are looking at is about the same as mine. If you decide to pass, let me know becasue I would be interested.

If you'd sell yours for $2800, I'd be interested. ;>)

jack vines

Studebaker Wheel
03-10-2016, 01:39 PM
Just last week I finished scanning most all the literature in my K10 file. About 100 scans. Includes a roster of known examples. Let me know if you need anything.

52202

LeoH
03-10-2016, 07:16 PM
The Big 6 was 226 ci in 1940. As used in the K10, horsepower was 75.

Terry

Thank you.

aarrggh
03-10-2016, 09:03 PM
buy it . . . .

YogiBear
03-10-2016, 09:34 PM
Thank you all for the information. I'm trying to determine fair value since it is part of an estate. I feel that $2,800 is very low. The only thing I can find out there is linked below...please chime in if you think otherwise!

http://www.nadaguides.com/Classic-Cars/1940/Studebaker/K10/1-Ton-Pickup/Values

YogiBear
03-10-2016, 09:36 PM
Thank you Mr. Quinn. I love the picture. I printed it out and taped it to my bland apartment wall...haha.

PackardV8
03-10-2016, 10:45 PM
Thank you all for the information. I'm trying to determine fair value since it is part of an estate. I feel that $2,800 is very low. The only thing I can find out there is linked below...please chime in if you think otherwise!

http://www.nadaguides.com/Classic-Cars/1940/Studebaker/K10/1-Ton-Pickup/Values

FWIW, opinions from those with no money or those of us who'd like a steal deal are questionable. On very rare vehicles which don't change hands often, NADA guides are just a quasi-expert opinion from one who'll never be asked to back it up with cash. The only real world way is to do a good presentation on eBay and what it sells for is what it's worth as is and today.

jack vines

YogiBear
03-11-2016, 07:08 AM
FWIW, opinions from those with no money or those of us who'd like a steal deal are questionable. On very rare vehicles which don't change hands often, NADA guides are just a quasi-expert opinion from one who'll never be asked to back it up with cash. The only real world way is to do a good presentation on eBay and what it sells for is what it's worth as is and today.

jack vines

Great advice, thank you Jack.

Mrs K Corbin
03-11-2016, 09:22 AM
You cram that on Ebay, and I'm breakin my Piggy....

PackardV8
03-11-2016, 10:37 AM
Style-wise, the K10 is my all-time favorite Stude truck, but what are the ergonometrics? The only reason I've never owned a Coupe Express is the cab is just too small for me. Is there more head and leg room in a K10?

Jack Vines

jerezstude
03-11-2016, 04:15 PM
Jack
To the best of my knowledge the same cab was used the K series trucks that was used on the 37 cp express.
Jerry Kurtz

PackardV8
03-11-2016, 04:27 PM
Jack
To the best of my knowledge the same cab was used the K series trucks that was used on the 37 cp express.
Jerry Kurtz

Hi, Jerry,

Thanks for the reply. I thought it looked similar. Same problem as that beautiful President coupe - just a bit tight for taller folk.

jack vines

Studebaker Wheel
03-11-2016, 06:44 PM
I am 6' 2" and do not have significant problems with the leg room in the '37 Coupe Express. I do have a problem with the 1938 and '39 (that used the same bodies). By re-constructing the seat back to narrower proportions it can be made comfortable. I have done that with my '38. The seat back is only 1 1/2" wide (see attachment). This could also be done on the '37 or the K10 if it is a problem.

52223

Studebaker Wheel
03-11-2016, 07:13 PM
In the event you are not aware the K10 was offered in a narrow box model late in the 1938 calendar year. It differed from the wider box by having flared box sides and was 46˝” wide or 9˝” narrower than the wide box (57” wide). I am attaching a photo of the narrow box model plus the dimensions from the 1939 full line truck catalog. Note also the color image (#7 above) of the restored truck I posted earlier shows the narrow box. The narrow box option was $38 cheaper (list FOB factory).

There is also a curiosity re the engine used on the K10. I became aware of this maybe a year or so ago when I was reading thru the misc. sales literature. I found that the basic Commander engine was used on both the K5 Coupe Express and the Fast Transport. That is same bore and stroke, 226 cubic inches and most all parts interchangeable. No surprises there. However the K10 engine was rated at 79 h.p. at 3200 rpm and the K5 at 90 h.p. at 3400 rpm. Eleven horsepower less in the K10 than the K5 and in a vehicle that had a gross rating of 6750 lbs. or 2250 more than that of the smaller K5 (4500 gross rating)! Thinking there must be a printing error I checked various other sources and found that all listed the same figures.

My first questions was how two vehicles using the same “basic” engine could have such a significant difference in the h.p. and second if those figures were accurate why it was designed that way. I kept looking. I was eventually able to find a partial answer when I checked the specification tables in the 1938 Truck Shop Manual. The difference it revealed was in the valve timing. I am including that information in the attachment (see box). I have a lot of confidence in the Studebaker engineering dept. and must assume that this was an intentional decision made after a lot of testing. I am not enough of a mechanic to be able to tell by the specs exactly what the change was intended to accomplish but assume that it had to do with providing more low end torque. If anyone has a theory on this I would welcome it. Withal it is interesting that it made that much difference.

Of course the rear end ratios were lower on the K10 4.63 vs. 4.55 on the K5 as was the transmission gearing. I can tell you that the “Fast” Transport was everything but fast! Wound pretty tight at 45mph! It was probably comparable to the competition of the time but hardly useful for much over the road use (especially in today’s traffic). I might also add that the K10 came with 16” wheels as standard equipment with 20” optional. There is at least one known survivor with the 20” in Alaska.

Have lots more literature on this model. If anyone (Yogi Bear?) has access to the truck pictured in the initial post on this thread I would be interested in knowing the serial number. I could divine the approx. date of assembly from the serial number.

5223152228 52229 52230

jclary
03-11-2016, 07:29 PM
Style-wise, the K10 is my all-time favorite Stude truck, but what are the ergonometrics? The only reason I've never owned a Coupe Express is the cab is just too small for me. Is there more head and leg room in a K10?

Jack Vines

Well...I'm not tall...I just "live" tall.;) Fact is, I never thought too much about having to "fit" in a vehicle until one of my sister's victims...uh...husbands came along (I think the fourth one). He was an ex-college basketball player (RIP) and about seven feet tall. His vehicles of choice were usually Lincolns, Cadillac, and one or two Chrysler big sedans. I got him to ride in my Lark, once. Poor guy looked like he was having to look between his knees to see where we were going.

As for the K-10. I love it. I've only seen them in pictures. I suspect they (like most trucks of the era) are kidney jarring, bone crushing, lumbering workhorses. You "purists" will have to forgive me, but I'd love to have a truck with that K-10 look, powered with a contemporary diesel, chassis, and gearbox. If one could be installed, complete with the ECM electronics, and sufficient braking capacity, I probably could live with an uber stiff ride. Showing up at a cruise-in with one of these, with an operational vintage wrecker boom would be about as "cool" as it gets.:!:

YogiBear
03-13-2016, 10:23 PM
Have lots more literature on this model. If anyone (Yogi Bear?) has access to the truck pictured in the initial post on this thread I would be interested in knowing the serial number. I could divine the approx. date of assembly from the serial number.

Great information, thanks for taking the time to post!

As to the serial number, the original Bill of Sale says "10 860"...there's a tear in the paper right thru it. My guess is it's supposed to read "K10 860". Engine number "OT 955".

Purchased used in 1942 for $461. In 2016 dollars, that is $6,708 for reference.

Studebaker Wheel
03-14-2016, 12:00 AM
Great information, thanks for taking the time to post!

As to the serial number, the original Bill of Sale says "10 860"...there's a tear in the paper right thru it. My guess is it's supposed to read "K10 860". Engine number "OT 955".

Purchased used in 1942 for $461. In 2016 dollars, that is $6,708 for reference.

Looks like September 1939 for a production date. Serials started at K10 101, engine nos. OT101. Looks like it has a good radiator mascot. Pretty unusual to have survived. They came either chrome or painted. Good luck in finding it a new home. Contact me if you need anything further.

52294

289stude
03-14-2016, 05:53 PM
In the event you are not aware the K10 was offered in a narrow box model late in the 1938 calendar year. It differed from the wider box by having flared box sides and was 46˝” wide or 9˝” narrower than the wide box (57” wide). I am attaching a photo of the narrow box model plus the dimensions from the 1939 full line truck catalog. Note also the color image (#7 above) of the restored truck I posted earlier shows the narrow box. The narrow box option was $38 cheaper (list FOB factory).

There is also a curiosity re the engine used on the K10. I became aware of this maybe a year or so ago when I was reading thru the misc. sales literature. I found that the basic Commander engine was used on both the K5 Coupe Express and the Fast Transport. That is same bore and stroke, 226 cubic inches and most all parts interchangeable. No surprises there. However the K10 engine was rated at 79 h.p. at 3200 rpm and the K5 at 90 h.p. at 3400 rpm. Eleven horsepower less in the K10 than the K5 and in a vehicle that had a gross rating of 6750 lbs. or 2250 more than that of the smaller K5 (4500 gross rating)! Thinking there must be a printing error I checked various other sources and found that all listed the same figures.

My first questions was how two vehicles using the same “basic” engine could have such a significant difference in the h.p. and second if those figures were accurate why it was designed that way. I kept looking. I was eventually able to find a partial answer when I checked the specification tables in the 1938 Truck Shop Manual. The difference it revealed was in the valve timing. I am including that information in the attachment (see box). I have a lot of confidence in the Studebaker engineering dept. and must assume that this was an intentional decision made after a lot of testing. I am not enough of a mechanic to be able to tell by the specs exactly what the change was intended to accomplish but assume that it had to do with providing more low end torque. If anyone has a theory on this I would welcome it. Withal it is interesting that it made that much difference.

Of course the rear end ratios were lower on the K10 4.63 vs. 4.55 on the K5 as was the transmission gearing. I can tell you that the “Fast” Transport was everything but fast! Wound pretty tight at 45mph! It was probably comparable to the competition of the time but hardly useful for much over the road use (especially in today’s traffic). I might also add that the K10 came with 16” wheels as standard equipment with 20” optional. There is at least one known survivor with the 20” in Alaska.

Have lots more literature on this model. If anyone (Yogi Bear?) has access to the truck pictured in the initial post on this thread I would be interested in knowing the serial number. I could divine the approx. date of assembly from the serial number.

5223152228 52229 52230

man those wheels are sweet. Look to be about 75 years ahead of they're time. Almost look like they where CNC machined from aluminum.

Studebaker Wheel
03-14-2016, 06:36 PM
Those aren't wheels John, they are hub caps. Have a set of four!

studerex
03-14-2016, 07:49 PM
Those aren't wheels John, they are hub caps. Have a set of four!

Of course you do. What a pack rat.

Studebaker Wheel
03-15-2016, 03:50 AM
Of course you do. What a pack rat.

You never know I might buy a K10 one of these days.

52321

Studebaker Wheel
03-15-2016, 03:59 AM
Of course you do. What a pack rat.

Speaking of pack rats I know a Studebaker recluse that is possibly the king of pack rats. He collects cars and engines like some people collect bottle caps! Has garages full stacked from floor to ceiling with every imaginable item. Just a few photos that represents maybe 5% of his horde.

52322523235232452325523265232752328

BobPalma
03-15-2016, 06:31 AM
:!!: What a great find and such an interesting thread; congrats and thanks to all. :)

Wouldn't that be a wonderful truck, wrecker and all, to get running and driving and clean it up and present it with all patina intact?

In fact, and I confess the devil to have influenced my thinking here, I have an idea: Why not first bring it to that condition, running and driving with patina intact...and then display it with a beautiful full classic, say a late 1930s Cadillac, "on the hook," (so as not to insult our Packard brethren), as if the Cadillac had broken down and needed to be towed home by the lowly Studebaker K10 workhorse in livery dress de jour? :eek: ;)

Yeah, I like that idea!

Now, for someone's more serious analysis of that valve timing explanation. I'm going to bring this to Jim Pepper's attention, that valve timing is so dramatically different.

Again, a great thread and posts. :!: :cool: BP

jpepper
03-15-2016, 12:07 PM
Great post. I love the looks of those trucks. The only other truck that comes close in looks is the Diamond T big pickup.

Studebaker used the same cam in both engines. What changed is the cam position in relation to the crank. Here are the valve timing particulars. The timing specifications are at .004 valve lift which is considered industry standard seat to seat timing to this day. The cam is a single pattern cam meaning that the intake and exhaust lobes are the same profile.
Duration 244°
Separation angle 109.5°
Overlap 25°
Here is the difference.
K5 and K15 intake centerline angle 107° (2.5° advanced)
K10 intake centerline angle 119.5° (10° retarded)

Advancing a cam increases bottom end torque at the expense of top end power. Retarding a cam does just the opposite. Advancing the cam increases mean cylinder pressure or effective compression. Again, retarding it does just the opposite. Higher cylinder pressure can make an engine fuel octane sensitive. The closing point of the intake valve is the influencing factor.

The K5 is a lighter vehicle so it was probably tuned to do very little wide open throttle operation. Advancing the cam gave crisp throttle response and a feeling of power. It's power peak is at about 3400 RPM after which it falls off dramatically.

The K10 is down a little on peak power because of lower mean cylinder pressure but its torque curve is real flat through a wide RPM band to about 4000 RPM. Exactly what you want in a heavy truck. Even at wide open throttle I doubt that there would be a problem with detonation even with the fuel octane of the late 30's. You could do a lot of heavy hauling and a lot of wide open throttle operation with no worries. Idle would be a little more labored and it would be a little lazy off idle. Usually in this situation you bring in the spark advance quicker and/or use more initial advance while keeping total timing the same.
This was/is a common practice for gasoline engines in heavy trucks.

In my opinion Studebaker retarded the cam on the K10 too far. 10° is a lot. Usually you would make a different cam for the application. They saved $$ by just making a different timing gear. If it were my engine with today's fuel, I would set the cam 4° retarded (113.5° centerline). You would get increased HP and driveability while maintaining a flat torque curve.

By the way, add a little duration to the cam and you have a typical Comp cams performance cam of today. Most performance cams are installed 2° - 4° advanced. Again, Studebaker was ahead of the times.

The final drive ratio difference was mentioned. It might be similar if tire size (outside diameter) is factored in.

Jim

Studebaker Wheel
03-15-2016, 12:53 PM
Thanks for that information Jim. Knew there had to be a logical explanation but was at a loss to explain it. I even checked the part numbers on the cam and found they were the same so this even added further to my consternation. As you probably know that basic engine was used up thru 1960 in the trucks, but enlarged to 245 c.i., so it would probably be a logical replacement for someone doing a restoration.

Skip Lackie
03-15-2016, 03:53 PM
Thanks Jim -- good (and understandable) explanation.

studerex
03-15-2016, 05:35 PM
Speaking of pack rats I know a Studebaker recluse that is possibly the king of pack rats. He collects cars and engines like some people collect bottle caps! Has garages full stacked from floor to ceiling with every imaginable item. Just a few photos that represents maybe 5% of his horde.

52322523235232452325523265232752328

Those are some old photos. All that stuff is buried under the later stash.

62champ
03-15-2016, 05:52 PM
Speaking of pack rats I know a Studebaker recluse that is possibly the king of pack rats. He collects cars and engines like some people collect bottle caps! Has garages full stacked from floor to ceiling with every imaginable item. Just a few photos that represents maybe 5% of his horde.

Wonder how many people like this have had families who did not care for their "collecting" and when they passed on, junked everything.

My grandparents had a distant relative live with them during the Great Depression who repaired watches/clocks in his spare time. When he passed, they backed a wagon below his upstairs window and used a feed scoop to toss everything out the window to be hauled the the "dump." My seven-years-old-at-the-time Uncle tried to grab a few pocket watches and he as told to throw them back because it was all "junk."

BobPalma
03-15-2016, 07:03 PM
:) Thanks for weighing in, Jim. :!: Good explanation. :cool: BP

YogiBear
03-15-2016, 10:15 PM
Excellent information guys. Thank you for posting. Hopefully stuff like this can be saved for future generations to reference.

I should have some better pictures by the end of the month which might further this discussion. Maybe I can find the handle to the Auto Crane. Supposedly these cranes are hard to find as well. I'm not sure it is 100% period correct, seems like they were used more commonly with 1920's Model T wreckers. Maybe someone here knows more about them?

http://www.castleequipment.com/Museum/auto_crane_weaver_history.htm

Guido
03-17-2016, 07:30 AM
I need to find a picture of the Ace wrecker that Chester Bradfield got from Ken Voight to see what make body is on it.

8E45E
03-17-2016, 07:35 AM
I need to find a picture of the Ace wrecker that Chester Bradfield got from Ken Voight to see what make body is on it.

This one? http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?64342-Another-nice-old-service-truck

Craig

8E45E
03-17-2016, 01:48 PM
Of course you do. What a pack rat.

They're probably hanging on his living room wall. http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?84244-Studebaker’s-best-looking-hub-cap-My-choice

Craig