Can We As SDC Members Finally Stop the Myth That Studebaker Went out of Business?

[Tom]

It gets old reading articles like in the latest Hemmings Classic Car magazine where a false statement was made that Studebaker went out of business or listening to other SDC members tell people including the media that Studebaker went out of business which is not true.

Studebaker simply shut down its declining and money losing automotive division in March of 1966 to focus on other, profitable businesses it had acquired in the previous several years including Gravely lawn mowers, Clarke industrial floor cleaners, Paxton automotive accessories, and more. Studebaker management's main obligation was to its shareholders.

It merged with Wagner Electric in 1966 and eventually became the $1 billion Studebaker-Worthington which was headquartered in New York City. The Studebaker name only disappeared in 1978 when Studebaker-Worthington was acquired by McGraw Edison. Its DNA lives on in Federal Mogul today through other acquisitions.

[Xcalibur]

Studebaker stopped building cars and trucks... end of story (at least for many of us).

[JoeHall]

If Studebaker is not out of business, please tell me where I can buy a 2016 Studebaker, or even a 1967 one? I do not want a riding mower, just a new Studebaker please.

[GrumpyOne]

It gets old reading articles like in the latest Hemmings Classic Car magazine where a false statement was made that Studebaker went out of business or listening to other SDC members tell people including the media that Studebaker went out of business which is not true.

Studebaker simply shut down its declining and money losing automotive division in March of 1966 to focus on other, profitable businesses it had acquired in the previous several years including Gravely lawn mowers, Clarke industrial floor cleaners, Paxton automotive accessories, and more. Studebaker management's main obligation was to its shareholders.

It merged with Wagner Electric in 1966 and eventually became the $1 billion Studebaker-Worthington which was headquartered in New York City. The Studebaker name only disappeared in 1978 when Studebaker-Worthington was acquired by McGraw Edison. Its DNA lives on in Federal Mogul today through other acquisitions.

Didn't Cooper Industries of Houston Texas gobble up McGraw Edison? It so, Cooper is still in Houston...

[StudeRich]

The correct explanation is more like: "the Studebaker Automotive Division ceased producing Automobiles and Commercial Vehicles, but the Studebaker Corp. remained in business."

[Hallabutt]

For most people "going out of business," is a simple and uncomplicated answer that is all that is required. Unless you are capable and willing to give a more concise narrative that includes a conclusion, just leave it there. The larger story is easy to find for anyone interested in pursuing it.

[StudeNewby]

For most people "going out of business," is a simple and uncomplicated answer that is all that is required. Unless you are capable and willing to give a more concise narrative that includes a conclusion, just leave it there. The larger story is easy to find for anyone interested in pursuing it.

Agreed. Most people we talk to at shows and cruise-ins are only interested in the barest of details. If they want the "complete" story then by all means I'm willing to share it...but most really don't care.

[wittsend]

It gets old reading articles like in the latest Hemmings Classic Car magazine where a false statement was made that Studebaker went out of business or listening to other SDC members tell people including the media that Studebaker went out of business which is not true.

Would that be before or after we convince people that our cars (at least Lark -types) are not Ramblers?

Perhaps it is best to say, "Studebaker stopped making cars in 1966." That way it is accurate on both accounts. It denotes when they stopped making cars (and, yes, other "vehicles" too), but doesn't eluded to the fact that the larger corporation ceased to exist (though most people will still likely assume they did). But, as others have stated most probably won't care. It does make one ponder what people said when Studebaker stopped making wagons though??? You know, some old timer who was NEVER going to buy one of those new fangled automobiles.

[52hawk]

Agreed. Most people we talk to at shows and cruise-ins are only interested in the barest of details. If they want the "complete" story then by all means I'm willing to share it...but most really don't care.

You're right! But even given just the short story,people will sometimes insist they actually know more than the 'Stude owner! I'll never forget a time when my '61 Hawk was in the shop,bare primer,no emblems-and a guy asked "Silver or Golden Hawk?" As I explained that they had dropped the Golden and Silver names by 1960,he continued to walk around the car,then said"yep,it's a Golden Hawk"!!!

[jclary]

Agreed. Most people we talk to at shows and cruise-ins are only interested in the barest of details. If they want the "complete" story then by all means I'm willing to share it...but most really don't care.

Very true. Profoundly true. For many people, reality is a moving target, and a "flexible" reality requires very little intellectual effort. Many of us, have fallen into the comfort of accepting entertaining stories instead of learning factual details. I wonder if anyone will ever ask why Oldsmobile, or Pontiac went bankrupt, or "out of business." Being that any auto made by Goofy Motors was just a matter of which "badge" was stuck across the plastic fascia. In spite of the contemporary fact that GM is (like Studebaker) a very diversified Investment Firm, their bankruptcy was a ploy to dump the responsibility for their failures, escape litigation, pilfer taxpayer coffers, and leave a debris field of loyal dealers and customers in their wake.

At least, Studebaker investors/managers, admitted their lack of enthusiasm to continue risking investment into a shrinking market. Like most other American auto makers, few saw the advancement of "off-shore" auto potential. In my world (at the time) Studebaker was hardly anything more than an obscure oddity. If I had not accidentally stumbled upon a "deal" on a Studebaker, it would probably still be only a curiosity. Only after getting one of their vehicles, joining the SDC, and learning of the rich legacy, have I really appreciated what their contribution has been.

Therefore, I'm not too bothered by the lack of public knowledge. This past weekend, while at a charity car show event, an old gentleman came by my 1948 Business Coupe and claimed he once owned a 1953 Golden Hawk. I greeted him with a smile, and let him go on his way...with the memories of his 1953 Golden Hawk myth intact.

[Tom]

But why repeat myths and mistruths? Can we not simply say that Studebaker diversified out of making vehicles to focus on more profitable lines?

For most people "going out of business," is a simple and uncomplicated answer that is all that is required. Unless you are capable and willing to give a more concise narrative that includes a conclusion, just leave it there. The larger story is easy to find for anyone interested in pursuing it.

[JoeHall]

But why repeat myths and mistruths? Can we not simply say that Studebaker diversified out of making vehicles to focus on more profitable lines?

Just write it off as, "fake news". LOL

[8E45E]

Can we not simply say that Studebaker diversified out of making vehicles to focus on more profitable lines?

As did Graham-Paige and Hupmobile. (Hupp Corporation): http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...aham-Hollywood

Craig

[kurtruk]

So to answer the thread title question: As evidenced by this thread, no.

[63 R2 Hawk]

It's a moot point because everybody knows that American Motors built Studebakers and used Ford engines.