Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poor Fit of 1963 Champ Front Bumper?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Poor Fit of 1963 Champ Front Bumper?

    Check out the fit of the front bumper on this 1963 Champ pickup. To me it looks like it should be a couple inches higher to fit the lines of the sheet metal. The truck is very nice looking, so I'd think the bumper is also in the correct factory position, but it just doesn't look right to me. What do you think? Is it correct? Thanks, Tom


  • #2
    Tom it's correct as is for a champ. What your seeing that makes it look out of place is the front nose piece is off a lark and bumper set different on those because they don't use the truck frame. I will agree with you it makes it look out of place. Studebaker just took what they had, bought the cheapest butt ugly box that they could find from Dodge and made a truck.
    Last edited by swvalcon; 10-11-2015, 10:29 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Looks like the bumper is upside down. They need to turn it over.

      Comment


      • #4
        Yep - truck frame was much different than car frame, so the front bumpers did not line up perfectly with sheet metal from the cars...

        Last edited by 62champ; 10-13-2015, 06:41 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          The bumper is not upside down! The frame bracket bolts that faced forward were on the top part of the bumper as were the tag bracket bolt holes on the drivers side.
          1958 Transtar 3E6-122
          1958 Transtar 3E13-31
          1959 Transtar 4E7-122
          1959 Lark 2 door Wagon
          1960 Transtar 5E28-171
          1960 Lark Gasser
          1963 Daytona

          Comment


          • #6
            With the ill-fitting "styleside" box, they figured that no one would notice the bumper doesn't fit either.
            63 Avanti R1 2788
            1914 Stutz Bearcat
            (George Barris replica)

            Washington State

            Comment


            • #7
              All these many years later, people seem to not realize Studebaker was in business to sell vehicles, including the workhorse Champ pickup line - not to make critics happy 55 years in the future.

              Comment


              • #8
                As many of you know, who have been participating on the forum for years, I have posted before about what I call "Bubba Economic Indicators." Examples are declining concentration of 18 Wheelers plying our highways. Once thriving shopping centers, with vacant storefronts, unkempt landscaping, and declining peak shopping time customers. It is nothing new. When I was working in industrial sales, I learned to watch for signals that a company was either up for sale, or in financial trouble. One sure sign is when key people begin "bailing." When the finance department quits taking the small discount for paying bills early, or become late on payments. I've even seen some who stopped replacing burned out lights, except in critical areas.

                The last few years of Studebaker Auto Production is a good example. I don't know at what point Studebaker transitioned from a Vehicle Manufacturer, with "other" investments, to a Corporation of "Investors" with a Vehicle Division...but the signs that the "vehicle" operation was losing to other interests were many. Clinging to tapered rear axles, flat head engines, "Scotsman" line, stickers replacing ornaments, etc.

                The "T" cab trucks, cobbled from the Lark line, and the outsourced truck bed is another indication. Already, as Bob Bourke mentioned, in writings and talks, the truck division was kind of a Studebaker "step-child." Kept going mainly to support the idea of Studebaker as a "full line" manufacturer. While a small cadre of "Bitter Clingers" passionately worked hard at keeping Studebaker Auto production relevant, innovative, and viable, ...these lovable, quaint, and odd fitting Champ trucks, to me, were a "bellwether" to the future of Studebaker.

                Had Studebaker been a customer of mine, with the signs I had learned to look for...I would have had them on a short leash. Probably, would have been demanding payment within ten days, if that.

                I know this is quite a long ramble from TWChamp's initial observation, but when you think about what a departure the well flowing lines traditional to Studebaker's designs, the Champs were a good sign that all was not well behind Studebaker corporate doors. Still, there's lots to be said "for" the trucks. Sliding rear windows, the 5 speed tranny with manual overdrive, some neat 4 wheel drive offerings, etc. Just not enough.
                John Clary
                Greer, SC

                SDC member since 1975

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Studebakercenteroforegon View Post
                  All these many years later, people seem to not realize Studebaker was in business to sell vehicles, including the workhorse Champ pickup line - not to make critics happy 55 years in the future.
                  It's hardly being overly critical by pointing out some of the questionable choices made.
                  Yes, they had a very limited budget.
                  As you say, "Studebaker was in business to sell vehicles" but the off-the parts shelf engineering choices certainly didn't help them sell any. Simply put, you have to spend money to make money.
                  At best it made them look bad, at worse it made Studebaker look like a firm that was about to go under, seriously undermining any potential buyer's confidence in the marque.
                  If you were going to buy a truck in 1963...one you'd pay for with hard earned dollars and a truck that you needed to help you earn a living, a case can be made for going with one of the "big 3" who would be around awhile.
                  63 Avanti R1 2788
                  1914 Stutz Bearcat
                  (George Barris replica)

                  Washington State

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The sad thing is they had all the parts needed right in house and could have kicked butt on every truck made in the 60's. Picture this with a beefed Lark frame and some spring options with any option you could get on a Lark including R motors and 4 speeds. All they had to do was cut the roof off a 2 dr wagon and build a solid floor and back panel.
                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Today pickups have leather seats, air conditioning, etc. and you could drive one to the local Country Club without looking
                      out of place. In the 1960s, pickups, whether Studebaker, Ford, Dodge, or Chevrolet were to haul hay bales out to the fields, and maybe haul cow manure back. For purposes such as this, the Champ cab created out of a 4 door Lark, or the large wide pickup box adapted from Dodge, were very creative improvements. Think about this the next time you are shoveling cow manure in your 2015 pickup.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Studebakercenteroforegon View Post
                        In the 1960s, pickups, whether Studebaker, Ford, Dodge, or Chevrolet were to haul hay bales out to the fields, and maybe haul cow manure back.
                        Don't forget International Harvester (or Willys/Jeep or GMC).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Before I got my Champ the previous owner made brackets to raise the bumper to fit the panel. You can see the spring shackles, but I think having the bumper raised offsets the latter. For about pennies Studebaker could have done the same. It doesn't really matter to me, I kinda like the cobbled together look of the Champ......
                          1962 Champ

                          51 Commander 4 door

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by swvalcon View Post
                            The sad thing is they had all the parts needed right in house and could have kicked butt on every truck made in the 60's. Picture this with a beefed Lark frame and some spring options with any option you could get on a Lark including R motors and 4 speeds. All they had to do was cut the roof off a 2 dr wagon and build a solid floor and back panel.
                            Interesting concept. I admit I don't know much about the Champ. Were they based on the Lark chassis or did they have there own individual chassis? Judging from the lack of funds available at the time I should guess they were based on the existing Lark chassis. If that's the case it sure seems that your comments make the most cost effective sense. Leads me to wonder why they didn't?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The frame is the same as a earlier truck, the cab body is a lark 4 dr cut behind the front dr with a rear panel added. Then on the trucks with out the fender side box they have a reworked Dodge box with Studebaker tailgate. So no it does not have a lark frame which would have been to light for a pickup that you intended to haul anything in. I think with very little work it could have been beefed up to work. They where building the lark frames so just make it out of thicker steel and add some x braces and a few more cross members and heavier springs front and rear.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X