Announcement

**8E45E** · 11-01-2007, 03:49 PM

quote:Originally posted by showbizkid
Decent, straight, rust-free car with a decent interior; second-series Hamilton-built with the white steering wheel. SDC sticker on the driver's vent window. Anyone know this car? I left a note

I'm betting its a Commander, looking at the side trim. Not to mention, they never produced any Challengers at the Hamilton plant.

Craig

**8E45E** · 11-01-2007, 03:49 PM

quote:Originally posted by showbizkid
Decent, straight, rust-free car with a decent interior; second-series Hamilton-built with the white steering wheel. SDC sticker on the driver's vent window. Anyone know this car? I left a note

I'm betting its a Commander, looking at the side trim. Not to mention, they never produced any Challengers at the Hamilton plant.

Craig

**Swifster** · 11-01-2007, 04:00 PM

quote:Originally posted by 8E45E

I'm betting its a Commander, looking at the side trim. Not to mention, they never produced any Challengers at the Hamilton plant.

I agree that everything, except maybe the nameplate, says Commander. As for Hamilton built Challengers, isn't there a possibilty that some were built prior to December of '63? I'm not familiar enough to know build history so this isn't a Challenge(r), no pun intended. Just curious.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Valrico, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $1755.45)

**Swifster** · 11-01-2007, 04:00 PM

quote:Originally posted by 8E45E

I'm betting its a Commander, looking at the side trim. Not to mention, they never produced any Challengers at the Hamilton plant.

I agree that everything, except maybe the nameplate, says Commander. As for Hamilton built Challengers, isn't there a possibilty that some were built prior to December of '63? I'm not familiar enough to know build history so this isn't a Challenge(r), no pun intended. Just curious.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Valrico, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $1755.45)

**BobPalma** · 11-01-2007, 04:12 PM

No, guys; Challengers were not built in Hamilton after South Bend production ended. This is obviously a Commander; among other things, note the circle S on the roof earmuffs, unlike the Lark-type emblem Challengers used. [^] BP

**BobPalma** · 11-01-2007, 04:12 PM

No, guys; Challengers were not built in Hamilton after South Bend production ended. This is obviously a Commander; among other things, note the circle S on the roof earmuffs, unlike the Lark-type emblem Challengers used. [^] BP

**showbizkid** · 11-01-2007, 04:43 PM

Ah! I saw the single headlamps and forgot to check the other details! It could be a '65 then.

[img=left]http://members.cox.net/clarknovak/lark.gif[/img=left]

Clark in San Diego
'63 F2/Lark Standard

The Studeblogger

http://studeblogger.blogspot.com

SanDiego Chapter of SDC

https://www.studebakersandiego.com

The Official Website of the San Diego Chapter of the Studebaker Drivers Club. Serving San Diego County

**showbizkid** · 11-01-2007, 04:43 PM

Ah! I saw the single headlamps and forgot to check the other details! It could be a '65 then.

[img=left]http://members.cox.net/clarknovak/lark.gif[/img=left]

Clark in San Diego
'63 F2/Lark Standard

The Studeblogger

http://studeblogger.blogspot.com

SanDiego Chapter of SDC

https://www.studebakersandiego.com

The Official Website of the San Diego Chapter of the Studebaker Drivers Club. Serving San Diego County

**PlainBrownR2** · 11-01-2007, 08:16 PM

Its got the telltale signs of a Commander. To add mine in its got that very simple spear strip of trim running down the length of the car. Far as I remember the Challenger had no trim down the side of the car. The single headlight could be had on 64-65, most people seemed to opt for the quad headlights. If its a 65, its pretty incognito as I can't see the taillight ventilation slits or the relocated taillights, or the emblems for the engine designation on the lower front fender.

1964 Studebaker Commander R2 clone
1950 Studebaker 2R5 with 170 turbocharged
[img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00003.jpg?t=1171152673[/img=left]
[img=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00009.jpg?t=1171153019[/img=right]
[img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00002.jpg?t=1171153180[/img=left]
[img=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00005.jpg?t=1171153370[/img=right]

**PlainBrownR2** · 11-01-2007, 08:16 PM

Its got the telltale signs of a Commander. To add mine in its got that very simple spear strip of trim running down the length of the car. Far as I remember the Challenger had no trim down the side of the car. The single headlight could be had on 64-65, most people seemed to opt for the quad headlights. If its a 65, its pretty incognito as I can't see the taillight ventilation slits or the relocated taillights, or the emblems for the engine designation on the lower front fender.

1964 Studebaker Commander R2 clone
1950 Studebaker 2R5 with 170 turbocharged
[img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00003.jpg?t=1171152673[/img=left]
[img=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00009.jpg?t=1171153019[/img=right]
[img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00002.jpg?t=1171153180[/img=left]
[img=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00005.jpg?t=1171153370[/img=right]

**StudeRich** · 11-01-2007, 09:27 PM

I really don't see where anyone called it a Challenger unless they fixed their error! There is no doubt that it is as Bob Palma said, a second series '64 Commander 2dr. Sedan. BUT I think you all missed a significant detail here!

That side moulding sure looks to me like it is wide, with a black stripe in the center and it bends around the curve in the front edge of the front fender. It either has Daytona mouldings or there is a reflection or black stripe painted on it! I wonder if it's a Commander "Special" with Daytona interior! hard to tell if there are bucket seats, looks like another make, high backed seats.

Commanders had stainless narrow mouldings.

And dual exhausts with no front fender 8 emblems, interesting! It must have had both fenders replaced!

It shouldn't be a '65, they had standard dual headlights. Most '64' Commanders had single, since dual was an option.

This is a very COOL car! Nice find Clark

Plainbrown, it sounds like you've got '65's and '66's all mixed up! '65's look very much like '64's, '66's are the modified looking ones with the flow-through ventilation tail lights and different grills.

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA

**StudeRich** · 11-01-2007, 09:27 PM

I really don't see where anyone called it a Challenger unless they fixed their error! There is no doubt that it is as Bob Palma said, a second series '64 Commander 2dr. Sedan. BUT I think you all missed a significant detail here!

That side moulding sure looks to me like it is wide, with a black stripe in the center and it bends around the curve in the front edge of the front fender. It either has Daytona mouldings or there is a reflection or black stripe painted on it! I wonder if it's a Commander "Special" with Daytona interior! hard to tell if there are bucket seats, looks like another make, high backed seats.

Commanders had stainless narrow mouldings.

And dual exhausts with no front fender 8 emblems, interesting! It must have had both fenders replaced!

It shouldn't be a '65, they had standard dual headlights. Most '64' Commanders had single, since dual was an option.

This is a very COOL car! Nice find Clark

Plainbrown, it sounds like you've got '65's and '66's all mixed up! '65's look very much like '64's, '66's are the modified looking ones with the flow-through ventilation tail lights and different grills.

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA