Love/hate 53 story from HMN

[Bob Andrews]

Interesting story. The author starts by telling about his love for the C/K style and how hard he tried to get his mother to buy a new one (ran out of gas on the test drive, so she bought another Hudson). Years later, he bought one of his own and still loved the looks, but apparently not much else. Tells a story I've never heard about the frames being such low quality they bent when the engine was installed and made it difficult to assemble the body. Yikes!

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2012/05/07/cars-ive-loved-and-hated-michael-lamms-unauthorized-auto-biography-chapter-13-1953-studebaker/?refer=news

[wcarroll@outrageous.net]

And to think of all the '53/'54 259's motors I got rid of over the years because I thought they were 232's.

[Chris Pile]

Interesting story. The author.....

Not just any author.. Michael Lamm is one of the most published automotive writers of our time in a host of automotive magazines. Perhaps you've read his stuff in "Special Interest Autos", "Hot Rod", "Car Craft", "Hemmings", etc. He's also written for "Popular Mechanics", and was the Editor of the short-lived "Car Life" and sat at the top of the masthead of "Road and Track" for many years. He's also written some terrific books on automotive design and auto history.

[dean pearson]

Thats funny about the running out of gas. That acually happened to a girl cousin of mine who was looking to trade in her 6 banger cmro for a trans am.
Long story short after we walked back to the lot we found the salesman with his head under her hood looking around, This little short girl jumped up off the ground grabbed the hood slammed it down nearly taking this guy's head and hands off.

So thats when I learned that my temper was hereditary, and no it does not get better with age.

Dean.

[Flashback]

Bob, The frames were flexible, not low quality. And I will disagree with the author, about not being fun to drive. I have driven many cars over the years, from a VW (lowest on my list) to a 65 Shelby Mustang (at the top), and my 53 C body is the most fun of any I have owned. I knew about the frame flexibility and all the other things, such as small brakes, low horsepower, ill fitting parts, along with others people complain about, and I still bought it. I am sure many (even on here) see it different, but even the 53 champion C body, I had when I was a teen hot rodder, was fun to drive. JMHO

[Bob Andrews]

Thanks for the input. I've been under the impression that there were many problems with the frames due to the steel being too thin, hence my low-quality conclusion. I've heard many stories about areas cracking from normal use, etc. I've never owned or driven a C or K, so I can't comment on the fun-to-drive issue.

To me, 'fun to drive' can mean different things- powerful, comfortable, well-handling, etc. In the case of my Lark, for example, it's downright primitive compared to modern cars- no P/S, stick, lame brakes, etc. To me, that's fun. To others (including the author), maybe it isn't. I'm just weird like that

[Flashback]

I think there was some frame problems, not sure most were premature or not. Out of the four 53 C/K's I have owned, I haven't seen any of the problems I hear about. I completely agree with you, Bob about what's fun. I only drove( or hung on ) to a rail one time. It wasen't fun. I drove (or aimed) a english ford A/G a lot. It was fun. I guess it takes power for some to have fun. I have always liked drag racing, but the "Cool Factor" always was and is, the most fun things to drive (to me). Course I have never driven a yellow coupe express (hint). I think it might get up pretty high. huh Jeff ?

[Gary1953]

Neat stor. Thank you for posting.
Love the color of Michael's '53

[pdrnec]

Funny - I learned to drive in a 65 Mustang. Seemed like a hell of a car to me at the time. Now I'm driving a 63 Daytona that is probably far better than when it left the factory. 4 wheel disks, modern 4bbl, electronic ignition, radial tires, Aluminum radiator with an aux fan - and I am under no illusions that t handles and performs even half as well as a Ford Focus or base model Honda. I've sold nice cars to people who swore they were death traps - because they forgot what 1960s technology was like. We get used to ABS and rack & pinion. They seemed to think that because the paint is nice and the interior is decent that it should handle like a modern car.

I remember a story reprinted here a few years ago about a guy who bought an Avanti for a daily driver because it was such a cool looking car. He lived in San Francisco. He wasn't happy and wasn't very complimentary about the Avanti, which irritated some folks here, but the fault was his for having unreasonable expectations. I didn't drive most of my cars half as much as I'd have liked simply because Los Angeles in the summer is not the place for 1950s technology. Overheating in traffic, vapor locking from alcohol mix fuel, there is a long list of reasons they are more fun to look at than they are to drive.

Sure do love 'em though.

[Warren Webb]

I love my Hawk & enjoy driving it, especially when the boost kicks in, but when you go over a dip, I feel the flex of the frame in the gas pedal. Not alot, but it's there. Thought about drilling the spot welds on the bottom plate & inserting tubing fore & aft of the cowl area but hate to mess with it being there is only 75,000 on it.

[Johnnywiffer]

I think the story was that the frame was made of thinner than normal gauge metal (13 ga.) so it WOULD flex, as a means of helping to soften the ride.

But the problem was, it flexed too much. It was pretty much OK until they installed the engines. Then it would kinda sink in the middle. Did anyone ever notice the bunch of washers in the front, where the frame attaches to the body? Plus it would squeak and rattle, especially in the K (hardtop) models.

PLUS when you jacked up the car on one corner, you couldn’t open nor close the doors. All in all, just not a very good idea.

I think that is called “Unforseen Consequences”.

John

[BobPalma]

The article reappeared in today's Wednesday, June 26, 2013 Hemmings Daily Blog:

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2...aker/#comments

I'm kind of surprised how Michael confused coupe with Starliner. I would have thought he'd know the difference....and I find it hard to believe the engine pictured is a 232, what with a 4-barrel carb and timing-cover-mounted fuel pump. BP

[PackardV8]

Michael Lamm is a very good, very experienced all-around magazine writer and editor. He's just not a Studebaker expert. Most here know more of the details about a given year and model than he does.

This is not unusual in writers to try to cover the automobile universe. Writing well and interestingly is a must; being accurate seems to be desired but not required. Our local newspaper has a Saturday automotive column by Greg Zyla, a syndicated writer. His column, often a response to a reader's letter, is seemingly based upon sloppy internet research and usually has at least one mistake per week. He has insisted in print three different times Studebaker offered the 374" Caribbean 2x4 engine as an option in the 1956 Golden Hawk. Wrong the first time, Greg; still wrong the third time.

jack vines

[studegary]

Michael Lamm is a very good, very experienced all-around magazine writer and editor. He's just not a Studebaker expert. Most here know more of the details about a given year and model than he does.


jack vines

But he did own a 1953 Starliner for many years.

[Commander Eddie]

I'll pipe in here.
I started driving as a teenager in Studebakers. Got away from them after I returned from the Navy in 1976 and have returned to the brand.
I have owned and driven dozens of different cars from Chevrolet, AMC, Triumph, Ford, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, etc. All of them had plenty to like, but there has always been something about a Studebaker that I missed and have now re-captured. The only frame issue I ever had with a Studebaker was when when I got hit from behind at 45 MPH by a Ford Falcon back in 1968. The Falcon was destroyed. My Commander sustained a bent bumper, dented trunk lid and a broken taillight. Later I discovered that the impact was hard enough that with both my feet on the brake peddle (I saw him coming) it flexed the frame in front and broke the welds on the back side of each A-frame. The frame itself went right back into position with no deformation. The flexible frame did it's job.
When I made the decision to drive a Studebaker on a daily basis my worry was that I would miss all the modern conveniences that I had become accustomed too. It has been about 4 months now and, honestly, I don't miss any of it. I have so much pleasure and fun driving the old Stude that I don't miss a thing.
So, I am sorry that Mr. Lamm does not share my opinion of these great old cars. I just figure it's his loss. I plan to drive my Studebakers until they take my license away from me.