Another 56 J to discuss

[ddub]

Needs restoration but might be fun to drive as is.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/161637491332?forcerRptr=true&item=161637491332&viewitem=

[JoeHall]

Do we really want to "discuss" another 56J here? All we are gonna do is go once more round the merry-go-round; Ed, who supposedly owned a couple of 56Js, 50 years ago, is gonna try to educate the world on what lemons they are, and we 56J aficionados are gonna respond the same way we always do.

Put another way, if we keep doing what we always do, we'll keep getting what we always get, so why bother. OTOH, we could use the ignore feature, as some of us already have

[SN-60]

Interesting Hawk!...I've always thought the Ceramic Green/Snowcap White factory tu-tone paint combo looked nice on the '56 Goldens. One needs to be very careful when evaluating this model mechanically, as this particular car probably hasn't had any updates done to the oiling system, and as Packard experts have pointed out, the original oil pump in these 352's really wasn't up to the job... so main bearings (and everything else) may be compromised in this V8 Packard engine. Some have installed Oldsmobile oil pumps into these engines...but doing that, of course, will not correct previous internal damage.
In the video, there seems to be 'hydraulic valve lifter clatter'....that very well could be an indication of possible internal engine problems.

Seller says the Packard Twin Ultramatic is in good shape...that may be, but a thorough road test is strongly advised for this or ANY automatic transmission equipped '56 Golden that comes up for sale.

I understand some forum members do not like hearing negative comments about this model Stude, (Or ANY Stude for that matter),...but since the seller mentions these Goldens trade in the 40-50K range, and he expects to get near that figure, I strongly feel that the novice (and perhaps not wealthy) car buff who may want to get into Studebakers should be advised of the realities...That's the least we can do for them.

[56 Rando]

Do we really want to "discuss" another 56J here? All we are gonna do is go once more round the merry-go-round; Ed, who supposedly owned a couple of 56Js, 50 years ago, is gonna try to educate the world on what lemons they are, and we 56J aficionados are gonna respond the same way we always do.

Put another way, if we keep doing what we always do, we'll keep getting what we always get, so why bother. OTOH, we could use the ignore feature, as some of already have

Amen, Brother.

[Guido]

Perhaps the power steering will overcome the transmission and oil pump issues...

This is just the type of thread that allows the self anointed "expert" to pontificate the same tired message.

[SN-60]

Newer Studebaker Forum members,....as you read the few posts above, you can see that to some folks "If Studebaker built it (or assembled it in the case of the '56 Golden Hawk), it HAS to be right"!....A reasonable, unbiased person knows that ANY machine can have imperfections...no matter who built it. In the case of the 1956 Studebaker Golden Hawk, the mechanical problems are REAL and need to be admitted and addressed.

"Sayin it ain't so" just doesn't cut it when you're encouraging newbies to spend thousands on what potentially could be a major headache! (And watch out for those defective Packard fan blades!!)

[ddub]

I thought about putting a disclaimer in the original post. We are all ( except for the random newbie who will find all the previous chatter with a little effort) familiar with the essential short comings of the car. Nevertheless, some of us find them attractive. What ELSE do you see? I don't like what was done to the front seat and would probably get something that fit in better and would try to get the tach working.

[SN-60]

I thought about putting a disclaimer in the original post. We are all ( except for the random newbie who will find all the previous chatter with a little effort) familiar with the essential short comings of the car. Nevertheless, some of us find them attractive. What ELSE do you see? I don't like what was done to the front seat and would probably get something that fit in better and would try to get the tach working.

If I can assist ONE 'random newbie' who is considering purchasing or has recently purchased one of these good looking Studes......then the 'pummeling' I take from certain members of this forum is all worth it....No 'sour grapes' here...but I do have to admit that there are times I really wonder about some of you!

[bezhawk]

Yes 56Js are some of the best looking Studes made. The Packard engine did have some shortcomings, but those issues have been[can be] well sorted out over 6O years. They can handle as well as any Stude IF they are upgraded and newer aftermarket shocks and sway bars are used. Stock you will likely, as Ed says, be disappointed. However the massive torque and impressive size of the Packard engine more than makes up for the value of putting money into them to fix them up. No Studebaker engine ever came close to what the stock 352 put out in torque....even the R3!!!! AND you don't have to rev them to massive rpms to avheive that torque. Plus you can't beat the turbine like smoothness of the Packard engine. I have owned 4......and not 5O years ago. I put Trans AMs in their place and enjoyed every minute of it!.

Ed is correct to point out safety issues with the fan blades. We don't want anyone injured over a missed recall.

[52 Ragtop]

Maybe the 56J's were the "First Muscle Car" ???

Jim