PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Reflection



BobPalma
10-03-2006, 07:55 AM
:) While doing some research on 1951 Studebakers for Hemmings, I ran across the following quote from Fred Fox regarding 1950 Studebakers. It appeared in the December 1985 Turning Wheels:

"In 1950, Studebaker had close to 21,000 employees working in South Bend. The old factory hummed like a giant bee hive. Today, as one walks past the silent buildings, it is hard to realize that 35 [now 56!] years ago, one thousand pointy-nosed cars came flowing out of the factory every working day." [:0]

Yep, it's hard to envision that, Fred! [V] BP

mbstude
10-03-2006, 07:58 AM
I knew they built a lot of cars in 1950, but WOW, that's s LOT! I'm having trouble even imagining what that many '50 Studes would look like all lined up in rows... [:p]


http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j209/mbstude/1_SDC_avatar_coast.jpg

mbstude
10-03-2006, 07:58 AM
I knew they built a lot of cars in 1950, but WOW, that's s LOT! I'm having trouble even imagining what that many '50 Studes would look like all lined up in rows... [:p]


http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j209/mbstude/1_SDC_avatar_coast.jpg

raprice
10-03-2006, 08:01 AM
If memory serves me correctly, 1950 was Studebaker's best sales year ever. Am I correct?
Rog
'59 Lark VI Regal Hardtop

raprice
10-03-2006, 08:01 AM
If memory serves me correctly, 1950 was Studebaker's best sales year ever. Am I correct?
Rog
'59 Lark VI Regal Hardtop

mbstude
10-03-2006, 08:34 AM
Yes, 1950 was Studebaker's biggest sales year. :)


http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j209/mbstude/1_SDC_avatar_coast.jpg

mbstude
10-03-2006, 08:34 AM
Yes, 1950 was Studebaker's biggest sales year. :)


http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j209/mbstude/1_SDC_avatar_coast.jpg

showbizkid
10-03-2006, 09:22 AM
Langworth shows 343,000 cars produced in 1950. '51 was second with 268,000. Only 138,000 '59s were produced.


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

Clark in San Diego
'63 F2/Lark Standard
http://studeblogger.blogspot.com

showbizkid
10-03-2006, 09:22 AM
Langworth shows 343,000 cars produced in 1950. '51 was second with 268,000. Only 138,000 '59s were produced.


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

Clark in San Diego
'63 F2/Lark Standard
http://studeblogger.blogspot.com

BobPalma
10-03-2006, 01:11 PM
:) Model-year production figures for bullet-nose Studebakers are:

1950: 343,164 [:p]
1951: 268,565 [^]

Total Bullet-Nose Production: 611,729 :D

(Source: Fred Fox, April 2001 Turning Wheels)

BobPalma
10-03-2006, 01:11 PM
:) Model-year production figures for bullet-nose Studebakers are:

1950: 343,164 [:p]
1951: 268,565 [^]

Total Bullet-Nose Production: 611,729 :D

(Source: Fred Fox, April 2001 Turning Wheels)

Scott
10-03-2006, 07:22 PM
That gets me to thinking. It seems that back in the 1950s people were really willing to go out a limb stylistically and be different. I don't see that at ALL anymore. I can't think of any mass produced car today that really sticks out like a lot of 1950s cars did even when they were new. A few, like the Pontiac Solstice are different in a way, but not really stylistically adventurous like the bullet noses or the Loewy models or even the 1959 Cadillac were in their day.

The Aztec was a bit adventurous and we all know how the throngs did NOT beat a path to the nearest Pontiac dealership to buy one.

BUT, apparently there were hundreds of thousands of people in those days that didn't mind, or even liked it, if their car was on the edge of the stylistic norm. Heady times.

Just a reflection.

Scott
10-03-2006, 07:22 PM
That gets me to thinking. It seems that back in the 1950s people were really willing to go out a limb stylistically and be different. I don't see that at ALL anymore. I can't think of any mass produced car today that really sticks out like a lot of 1950s cars did even when they were new. A few, like the Pontiac Solstice are different in a way, but not really stylistically adventurous like the bullet noses or the Loewy models or even the 1959 Cadillac were in their day.

The Aztec was a bit adventurous and we all know how the throngs did NOT beat a path to the nearest Pontiac dealership to buy one.

BUT, apparently there were hundreds of thousands of people in those days that didn't mind, or even liked it, if their car was on the edge of the stylistic norm. Heady times.

Just a reflection.

Transtar56
10-03-2006, 07:38 PM
Calling the Aztec "adventures" is the kindest thing Ive ever heard about them.
Ive seen one that the town police bought, having blue and red lights on the roof and painted in the police colors didn't hurt its looks at all, in fact, it may be the best looking one Ive seen yet.
At least it looks functional.

Transtar56
10-03-2006, 07:38 PM
Calling the Aztec "adventures" is the kindest thing Ive ever heard about them.
Ive seen one that the town police bought, having blue and red lights on the roof and painted in the police colors didn't hurt its looks at all, in fact, it may be the best looking one Ive seen yet.
At least it looks functional.

Transtar56
10-03-2006, 07:39 PM
By the way,did you know theres a Saturn version of the Solstice,just saw a commercial for it the other night.

Transtar56
10-03-2006, 07:39 PM
By the way,did you know theres a Saturn version of the Solstice,just saw a commercial for it the other night.

Studedude1961
10-03-2006, 08:12 PM
Arguably, and this is just my opinion mind you, the Honda Accord and the Ford Taurus ruined automobile styling for at least a generation and counting. The Taurus "jelly bean" look is with us still. The oversquare early Honda Accords spawned a host of imitators. Government intervention (or something else...you tell me) now makes impossible what was possible and even expected in the 1950s...annual styling changes. Nowadays a design hangs on for years and there is truly nothing new under the sun. We are told lead times are 3-4 years. Ford is in trouble now and we are told they won't be introducing anything really new or innovative until the end of another product cycle. Plucky AMC and Studebaker reacted swiftly to almost certain extinction in the mid and late 1950s with products developed on shoestring budgets and in record time. Ford and GM in 2006 can't quite manage what they were masters at in 1956, quick design lead times, which is surprising in this age of high tech computerized styling.

Ford and GM must do something "Bulletnose Daring" and quick. To borrow an old AMC advertising phrase, "If you had to compete with Toyota and Honda what would YOU do?"

Studedude1961
--1963 Cruiser

Studedude1961
10-03-2006, 08:12 PM
Arguably, and this is just my opinion mind you, the Honda Accord and the Ford Taurus ruined automobile styling for at least a generation and counting. The Taurus "jelly bean" look is with us still. The oversquare early Honda Accords spawned a host of imitators. Government intervention (or something else...you tell me) now makes impossible what was possible and even expected in the 1950s...annual styling changes. Nowadays a design hangs on for years and there is truly nothing new under the sun. We are told lead times are 3-4 years. Ford is in trouble now and we are told they won't be introducing anything really new or innovative until the end of another product cycle. Plucky AMC and Studebaker reacted swiftly to almost certain extinction in the mid and late 1950s with products developed on shoestring budgets and in record time. Ford and GM in 2006 can't quite manage what they were masters at in 1956, quick design lead times, which is surprising in this age of high tech computerized styling.

Ford and GM must do something "Bulletnose Daring" and quick. To borrow an old AMC advertising phrase, "If you had to compete with Toyota and Honda what would YOU do?"

Studedude1961
--1963 Cruiser

Scott
10-03-2006, 08:18 PM
quote:Originally posted by Studedude1961

Ford and GM must do something "Bulletnose Daring" and quick. To borrow an old AMC advertising phrase, "If you had to compete with Toyota and Honda what would YOU do?"

Studedude1961
--1963 Cruiser



MERGE!

Scott
10-03-2006, 08:18 PM
quote:Originally posted by Studedude1961

Ford and GM must do something "Bulletnose Daring" and quick. To borrow an old AMC advertising phrase, "If you had to compete with Toyota and Honda what would YOU do?"

Studedude1961
--1963 Cruiser



MERGE!

GTtim
10-03-2006, 08:28 PM
Chrysler 300 and Dodge Magnum come to mind.


quote:Originally posted by Scott

That gets me to thinking. It seems that back in the 1950s people were really willing to go out a limb stylistically and be different. I don't see that at ALL anymore. I can't think of any mass produced car today that really sticks out like a lot of 1950s cars did even when they were new. A few, like the Pontiac Solstice are different in a way, but not really stylistically adventurous like the bullet noses or the Loewy models or even the 1959 Cadillac were in their day.

The Aztec was a bit adventurous and we all know how the throngs did NOT beat a path to the nearest Pontiac dealership to buy one.

BUT, apparently there were hundreds of thousands of people in those days that didn't mind, or even liked it, if their car was on the edge of the stylistic norm. Heady times.

Just a reflection.


Tim K.
'64 R2 GT Hawk

GTtim
10-03-2006, 08:28 PM
Chrysler 300 and Dodge Magnum come to mind.


quote:Originally posted by Scott

That gets me to thinking. It seems that back in the 1950s people were really willing to go out a limb stylistically and be different. I don't see that at ALL anymore. I can't think of any mass produced car today that really sticks out like a lot of 1950s cars did even when they were new. A few, like the Pontiac Solstice are different in a way, but not really stylistically adventurous like the bullet noses or the Loewy models or even the 1959 Cadillac were in their day.

The Aztec was a bit adventurous and we all know how the throngs did NOT beat a path to the nearest Pontiac dealership to buy one.

BUT, apparently there were hundreds of thousands of people in those days that didn't mind, or even liked it, if their car was on the edge of the stylistic norm. Heady times.

Just a reflection.


Tim K.
'64 R2 GT Hawk

showbizkid
10-04-2006, 12:06 AM
I've long thought that the reason 50's and 60's cars are more stylistically adventurous is because they were so heavily aeronautics/space influenced. Remember, back then, space flight and rocketry were the future. Jet planes were still very new and exciting. The imagery of these devices were borrowed liberally for cars. Think about this partial list:

* The airplane-inspired 50/51 Studes
* The '48 Cadillac fins
* The Ford "jet exhaust" taillight nacelles
* The 55 Chevy hood ornament
* The '58 Pontiac Bonneville rocket side trim
* The '57 Dodge "stabilizer fins"
* ...(add your favorite here)...

The point is, there is now no "future device" to provide inspiration for automobile stylists. How can a computer CPU influence car design? There's no forward-looking, exciting, action filled technology from which to borrow.

It's my theory, and I'm sticking to it [8D]


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

Clark in San Diego
'63 F2/Lark Standard
http://studeblogger.blogspot.com

showbizkid
10-04-2006, 12:06 AM
I've long thought that the reason 50's and 60's cars are more stylistically adventurous is because they were so heavily aeronautics/space influenced. Remember, back then, space flight and rocketry were the future. Jet planes were still very new and exciting. The imagery of these devices were borrowed liberally for cars. Think about this partial list:

* The airplane-inspired 50/51 Studes
* The '48 Cadillac fins
* The Ford "jet exhaust" taillight nacelles
* The 55 Chevy hood ornament
* The '58 Pontiac Bonneville rocket side trim
* The '57 Dodge "stabilizer fins"
* ...(add your favorite here)...

The point is, there is now no "future device" to provide inspiration for automobile stylists. How can a computer CPU influence car design? There's no forward-looking, exciting, action filled technology from which to borrow.

It's my theory, and I'm sticking to it [8D]


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

Clark in San Diego
'63 F2/Lark Standard
http://studeblogger.blogspot.com

Scott
10-04-2006, 09:07 AM
Yes, that's true. There was a lot of optimism in the future and technology (for most people) back then. There isn't much that can inspire automotive styling anymore, unless you count retro influences.

Although I have to admit I generally like the looks of cars now better than in the 1970s. Even when those cars were new I felt that the exictement was gone and that the 70s were very dark years for styling.

It's funny to me, and frustrating in a way, that a 1992 whatever brand car looks pretty much the same as a 2005 car. That's not true of Cadillac, though, now that they've decided to jump off the deep end of taste. Just my opinion.

Scott
10-04-2006, 09:07 AM
Yes, that's true. There was a lot of optimism in the future and technology (for most people) back then. There isn't much that can inspire automotive styling anymore, unless you count retro influences.

Although I have to admit I generally like the looks of cars now better than in the 1970s. Even when those cars were new I felt that the exictement was gone and that the 70s were very dark years for styling.

It's funny to me, and frustrating in a way, that a 1992 whatever brand car looks pretty much the same as a 2005 car. That's not true of Cadillac, though, now that they've decided to jump off the deep end of taste. Just my opinion.

CKOT
10-04-2006, 09:42 AM
I bought a Magnum, purely because it seemed fun AND different from everything else out there. I told my wife, this was the first new car in at least 10-15 years that garnered that much interest......

CKOT
10-04-2006, 09:42 AM
I bought a Magnum, purely because it seemed fun AND different from everything else out there. I told my wife, this was the first new car in at least 10-15 years that garnered that much interest......

65cruiser
10-04-2006, 09:53 AM
Am I the only one that when I read the title to this thread "Interesting Reflection", thought that there would be a link to something on Ebay that had a rather interesting IMAGE reflected back?:D

Bob, you disappointed me:)[8D][:I]
________________________
Mark Anderson
1965 Cruiser
http://home.alltel.net/anderm

http://home.alltel.net/anderm/images/smstude.jpg

65cruiser
10-04-2006, 09:53 AM
Am I the only one that when I read the title to this thread "Interesting Reflection", thought that there would be a link to something on Ebay that had a rather interesting IMAGE reflected back?:D

Bob, you disappointed me:)[8D][:I]
________________________
Mark Anderson
1965 Cruiser
http://home.alltel.net/anderm

http://home.alltel.net/anderm/images/smstude.jpg

Canadoug
10-04-2006, 10:32 AM
well said ,showbiz kid. I have often had that same thought. And as for the Aztec .....what were they thinking ......and I LIKE jellybeans ....but not taurus's.............lol

Canadoug
10-04-2006, 10:32 AM
well said ,showbiz kid. I have often had that same thought. And as for the Aztec .....what were they thinking ......and I LIKE jellybeans ....but not taurus's.............lol

hank63
10-04-2006, 10:34 AM
A couple of small points - the annual model change was normally based on economy. The press tool dies were very costly. The "big" companies made so many cars they wore out the dies and could change styling. Those who sold fewer cars kept their dies longer, meaning model changes were fewer and further between.
Some designs were kinder to the dies, so the company could keep going longer. The modern cars generally don't wear the dies so much, they are all rounded and part of the design consideration is the press tool wear. Hence, the longer "product cycle" for many modern and boring-looking cars.
Lets be thankful Studebaker didn't sell so many - they would have worn out the press tools and probably changed their designs to something we might not have liked as much.
/H

hank63
10-04-2006, 10:34 AM
A couple of small points - the annual model change was normally based on economy. The press tool dies were very costly. The "big" companies made so many cars they wore out the dies and could change styling. Those who sold fewer cars kept their dies longer, meaning model changes were fewer and further between.
Some designs were kinder to the dies, so the company could keep going longer. The modern cars generally don't wear the dies so much, they are all rounded and part of the design consideration is the press tool wear. Hence, the longer "product cycle" for many modern and boring-looking cars.
Lets be thankful Studebaker didn't sell so many - they would have worn out the press tools and probably changed their designs to something we might not have liked as much.
/H

Studedude1961
10-04-2006, 10:39 AM
Here's to the dies wearing out quickly at Ford and GM. As for a GM and Ford merger...well, the "two drunks helping each other across the street" saying attributed to the Studebaker-Packard merger is just as relevant today! It would just be a much bigger company producing even more cars that nobody wants.

Studedude1961
--1963 Cruiser

Studedude1961
10-04-2006, 10:39 AM
Here's to the dies wearing out quickly at Ford and GM. As for a GM and Ford merger...well, the "two drunks helping each other across the street" saying attributed to the Studebaker-Packard merger is just as relevant today! It would just be a much bigger company producing even more cars that nobody wants.

Studedude1961
--1963 Cruiser

DilloCrafter
10-04-2006, 10:45 AM
I agree about the general lack of new and good styling today. It does seem that Chrysler has made a greater effort than most makers to give us some nicely styled new cars to enjoy looking at.

And as was said earlier, a lot of that is retro influence. Look at how much the late 90's Dodge Dakota looks like a Studebaker 54-55 C-Cab. They borrowed that truck model grille (with four horizonal oblong holes) for nearly everything Dodge sells now. Also, Chrysler seems to be greatly influenced by the car chopping and customizing crowd. Kind of neat to see the manufacturer paying homage to the car customizer.

http://rocketdillo.com/studebaker/misc/images/Current_Avacar.gif[/img=left] - DilloCrafter

1955 1/2 Ton Pickup
[i]The Red-Headed Amazon
Deep in the heart of Texas

DilloCrafter
10-04-2006, 10:45 AM
I agree about the general lack of new and good styling today. It does seem that Chrysler has made a greater effort than most makers to give us some nicely styled new cars to enjoy looking at.

And as was said earlier, a lot of that is retro influence. Look at how much the late 90's Dodge Dakota looks like a Studebaker 54-55 C-Cab. They borrowed that truck model grille (with four horizonal oblong holes) for nearly everything Dodge sells now. Also, Chrysler seems to be greatly influenced by the car chopping and customizing crowd. Kind of neat to see the manufacturer paying homage to the car customizer.

http://rocketdillo.com/studebaker/misc/images/Current_Avacar.gif[/img=left] - DilloCrafter

1955 1/2 Ton Pickup
[i]The Red-Headed Amazon
Deep in the heart of Texas

Swifster
10-04-2006, 10:46 AM
quote:Originally posted by Studedude1961

Arguably, and this is just my opinion mind you, the Honda Accord and the Ford Taurus ruined automobile styling for at least a generation and counting. The Taurus "jelly bean" look is with us still. The oversquare early Honda Accords spawned a host of imitators. Government intervention (or something else...you tell me) now makes impossible what was possible and even expected in the 1950s...annual styling changes. Nowadays a design hangs on for years and there is truly nothing new under the sun. We are told lead times are 3-4 years. Ford is in trouble now and we are told they won't be introducing anything really new or innovative until the end of another product cycle. Plucky AMC and Studebaker reacted swiftly to almost certain extinction in the mid and late 1950s with products developed on shoestring budgets and in record time. Ford and GM in 2006 can't quite manage what they were masters at in 1956, quick design lead times, which is surprising in this age of high tech computerized styling.

Ford and GM must do something "Bulletnose Daring" and quick. To borrow an old AMC advertising phrase, "If you had to compete with Toyota and Honda what would YOU do?"

Studedude1961
--1963 Cruiser



Thank your Congressman! Cars are styled as much for fuel economy as for appearance. GM, Ford and Chrysler all have wind tunnels to see if the latest design will cheat the wind and gain a mile or two per gallon. CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) has dictated this, along with tin-can construction.

Of course, without CAFE and emissions standards, we'd all still be driving cars that would still have carburetors and engines that were only good until 100K. The technology is a double edged sword though. This technology also has given us cars that put out over 400, 500 and even 600 horsepower (Mercedes-Benz McLaren SLR) with a nice smooth idle and the ability to get over 20 MPG.

Chrysler has truely taken a step back with cars that are a least trying to put styling back in the mix. As for yearly changes, these are more about the cost of yearly updates than anything else. Looking at how many different platforms there are now. Back in the '50's, there was large and larger. In the '60's, you had large and intermediate. The '70's added the small car. At most, you had three or 4 platforms. Now most divisions have 5 or more, and that doesn't include trucks.

And really, other than the Chevy engines, what is really different between a '64 Cruiser and a '65?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Lakeland, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona

Michigan Speed - www.michiganspeed.com
Club Hot Rod - www.clubhotrod.com
LS1 Tech - www.ls1tech.com

Swifster
10-04-2006, 10:46 AM
quote:Originally posted by Studedude1961

Arguably, and this is just my opinion mind you, the Honda Accord and the Ford Taurus ruined automobile styling for at least a generation and counting. The Taurus "jelly bean" look is with us still. The oversquare early Honda Accords spawned a host of imitators. Government intervention (or something else...you tell me) now makes impossible what was possible and even expected in the 1950s...annual styling changes. Nowadays a design hangs on for years and there is truly nothing new under the sun. We are told lead times are 3-4 years. Ford is in trouble now and we are told they won't be introducing anything really new or innovative until the end of another product cycle. Plucky AMC and Studebaker reacted swiftly to almost certain extinction in the mid and late 1950s with products developed on shoestring budgets and in record time. Ford and GM in 2006 can't quite manage what they were masters at in 1956, quick design lead times, which is surprising in this age of high tech computerized styling.

Ford and GM must do something "Bulletnose Daring" and quick. To borrow an old AMC advertising phrase, "If you had to compete with Toyota and Honda what would YOU do?"

Studedude1961
--1963 Cruiser



Thank your Congressman! Cars are styled as much for fuel economy as for appearance. GM, Ford and Chrysler all have wind tunnels to see if the latest design will cheat the wind and gain a mile or two per gallon. CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) has dictated this, along with tin-can construction.

Of course, without CAFE and emissions standards, we'd all still be driving cars that would still have carburetors and engines that were only good until 100K. The technology is a double edged sword though. This technology also has given us cars that put out over 400, 500 and even 600 horsepower (Mercedes-Benz McLaren SLR) with a nice smooth idle and the ability to get over 20 MPG.

Chrysler has truely taken a step back with cars that are a least trying to put styling back in the mix. As for yearly changes, these are more about the cost of yearly updates than anything else. Looking at how many different platforms there are now. Back in the '50's, there was large and larger. In the '60's, you had large and intermediate. The '70's added the small car. At most, you had three or 4 platforms. Now most divisions have 5 or more, and that doesn't include trucks.

And really, other than the Chevy engines, what is really different between a '64 Cruiser and a '65?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Lakeland, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona

Michigan Speed - www.michiganspeed.com
Club Hot Rod - www.clubhotrod.com
LS1 Tech - www.ls1tech.com

John Kirchhoff
10-04-2006, 11:43 AM
There's some pretty homely vehicles out there but a really ugly duckling I saw recently was little sawed off Kia SUV type thing. At first I though it was a chest type freezer that fell off someone's truck until I saw it had wheels!

John Kirchhoff
10-04-2006, 11:43 AM
There's some pretty homely vehicles out there but a really ugly duckling I saw recently was little sawed off Kia SUV type thing. At first I though it was a chest type freezer that fell off someone's truck until I saw it had wheels!

ROADRACELARK
10-04-2006, 12:03 PM
Scion.....Toaster on wheels.:)
Dan

[img=left]http://static.flickr.com/57/228744729_7aff5f0118_m.jpg[/img=left]
Road Racers turn left AND right.

ROADRACELARK
10-04-2006, 12:03 PM
Scion.....Toaster on wheels.:)
Dan

[img=left]http://static.flickr.com/57/228744729_7aff5f0118_m.jpg[/img=left]
Road Racers turn left AND right.

showbizkid
10-04-2006, 12:31 PM
quote:Originally posted by ROADRACELARK

Scion.....Toaster on wheels.:)


I always thought those looked like someone ran an Astro van through the car wash and it shrunk :D


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

Clark in San Diego
'63 F2/Lark Standard
http://studeblogger.blogspot.com

showbizkid
10-04-2006, 12:31 PM
quote:Originally posted by ROADRACELARK

Scion.....Toaster on wheels.:)


I always thought those looked like someone ran an Astro van through the car wash and it shrunk :D


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

Clark in San Diego
'63 F2/Lark Standard
http://studeblogger.blogspot.com

Guido
10-04-2006, 01:01 PM
Just to go off topic from a rather off topic topic, check out the overall EPA estimates for today versus those of 25 years ago. Despite all the talk of newer technology, lightweight components and better fuel economy, on aberage, cars are only getting 1 MPG better than they were in 1981.

The car manufacturesrs have duped us and also bowed to the oil industry by squashing the electric cars.

http://thumb14.webshots.net/t/53/453/1/21/36/2964121360097493054pVJTFL_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/57/757/2/88/4/2023288040097493054SEKowB_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/18/19/8/37/21/2050837210097493054IYBJJL_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/59/559/1/43/57/2876143570097493054jKVhDw_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/22/22/0/2/68/2589002680097493054ftBuBw_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/28/28/8/30/30/2075830300097493054aSSlFv_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/59/459/2/23/86/2067223860097493054YoeGMx_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/28/28/5/18/33/2537518330097493054OgEKcN_th.jpg
Guido Salvage - "Where rust is beautiful"

Studebaker horse drawn buggy; 1946 M-16 fire truck; 1948 M-16 grain truck; 1949 2R16A grain truck; 1949 2R17A fire truck; 1950 2R5 pickup; 1952 2R17A grain truck; 1952 Packard 200 4 door; 1955 E-38 grain truck; 1957 3E-40 flatbed; 1961 6E-28 grain truck; 1962 7E-13D 4x4 rack truck; 1962 7E-7 Champ pickup; 1962 GT Hawk 4 speed; 1963 8E-28 flatbed; 1964 Avanti R2 4 speed; 1964 Cruiser and various other "treasures".

Hiding and preserving Studebakers in Richmond, Goochland & Louisa, Va.

Guido
10-04-2006, 01:01 PM
Just to go off topic from a rather off topic topic, check out the overall EPA estimates for today versus those of 25 years ago. Despite all the talk of newer technology, lightweight components and better fuel economy, on aberage, cars are only getting 1 MPG better than they were in 1981.

The car manufacturesrs have duped us and also bowed to the oil industry by squashing the electric cars.

http://thumb14.webshots.net/t/53/453/1/21/36/2964121360097493054pVJTFL_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/57/757/2/88/4/2023288040097493054SEKowB_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/18/19/8/37/21/2050837210097493054IYBJJL_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/59/559/1/43/57/2876143570097493054jKVhDw_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/22/22/0/2/68/2589002680097493054ftBuBw_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/28/28/8/30/30/2075830300097493054aSSlFv_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/59/459/2/23/86/2067223860097493054YoeGMx_th.jpghttp://thumb14.webshots.net/t/28/28/5/18/33/2537518330097493054OgEKcN_th.jpg
Guido Salvage - "Where rust is beautiful"

Studebaker horse drawn buggy; 1946 M-16 fire truck; 1948 M-16 grain truck; 1949 2R16A grain truck; 1949 2R17A fire truck; 1950 2R5 pickup; 1952 2R17A grain truck; 1952 Packard 200 4 door; 1955 E-38 grain truck; 1957 3E-40 flatbed; 1961 6E-28 grain truck; 1962 7E-13D 4x4 rack truck; 1962 7E-7 Champ pickup; 1962 GT Hawk 4 speed; 1963 8E-28 flatbed; 1964 Avanti R2 4 speed; 1964 Cruiser and various other "treasures".

Hiding and preserving Studebakers in Richmond, Goochland & Louisa, Va.

tstclr
10-04-2006, 01:04 PM
Someone should take an Aztec, paint it Olive Drab, slap on some knobby tires with a spare on the roof with a big antenna and then it would look cool-like some futuristic military vehicle.
Or maybe I'm just wierd.. [:p]

Todd

63 Lark 2dr Sedan

tstclr
10-04-2006, 01:04 PM
Someone should take an Aztec, paint it Olive Drab, slap on some knobby tires with a spare on the roof with a big antenna and then it would look cool-like some futuristic military vehicle.
Or maybe I'm just wierd.. [:p]

Todd

63 Lark 2dr Sedan