PDA

View Full Version : If the horse didn't die 44 years ago....



BobPalma
05-18-2016, 09:31 AM
....it's sure been on Life Support a long time, and I doubt that it ever will! :eek:

Per the recent "discussions" about "real" R3-engined Studebakers, the following item appeared in the January 1972 SDC Bulletin, the forerunner of Turning Wheels:

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/1972R3bulletindiscussion0002_zpshhvhqf3g.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/BobPalma/media/1972R3bulletindiscussion0002_zpshhvhqf3g.jpg.html)

And in the May 1972 SDC Bulletin, this follow-up:

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/1972R3bulletingeorge_zps9op6hvrx.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/BobPalma/media/1972R3bulletingeorge_zps9op6hvrx.jpg.html)

So to everyone harboring delusions of this ever being settled once and for all, I say, "Good Luck!" ;) :cool: BP

alaipairod
05-18-2016, 09:39 AM
Love the history lesson Bob............I'm sure the horse ain't gonna die on this issue........

Gunslinger
05-18-2016, 10:11 AM
54209

Don't worry, Bob...the usual suspect(s) will opine.

Buzzard
05-18-2016, 10:21 AM
I don't think I'll go out and burn my R4 clone GT (since STU-V in 1971) anytime soon. Great old article Bob.
Bill

BobWaitz
05-18-2016, 10:48 AM
Gotta love enthusiasts. If one invented a time machine rather than stop Hitler or meet Jesus they'd be convincing Bob Bourke to change the flat chrome panel on the dash of the '53.


Hmmm... Maybe I can scare up an old mimeograph machine somewhere and put out some "vintage" newsletters to stir up trouble. Oops, did I say that out loud?

paintim613
05-18-2016, 01:03 PM
Gotta love enthusiasts. If one invented a time machine rather than stop Hitler or meet Jesus they'd be convincing Bob Bourke to change the flat chrome panel on the dash of the '53.


Hmmm... Maybe I can scare up an old mimeograph machine somewhere and put out some "vintage" newsletters to stir up trouble. Oops, did I say that out loud?
I love the '53 chrome dash except when the sun hits it from behind. Better have very dark sunglasses.

karterfred88
05-18-2016, 02:11 PM
54210It's only been 44 years:!!:

BobPalma
05-18-2016, 02:31 PM
54210It's only been 44 years:!!:

:lol: That's great, Fred; thanks. :!: :cool: BP

GrumpyOne
05-18-2016, 03:19 PM
I guess it just reflects the anal level of the beholder or.....

SN-60
05-21-2016, 12:51 PM
A forum friend PM'd me to check out this thread, which I missed.

Bob & Bruce, I sincerely hope you're enjoying yourselves making fun of someone who is trying to 'set the record straight' on how many R3 and R4 passenger cars were actually sold by the Studebaker Corp.

However, I believe that the OWNERS of these cars that you 'love to hate' should be shown a little more respect!....I wonder what you two would be saying if you actually OWNED one of these rare factory Studebakers?

Think about it friends.....SN-60 ;)

t walgamuth
05-21-2016, 02:02 PM
I missed any insult which might have been noticed, thinking just that folks were having fun discussing our enthusiasm addled brains.;)

We all have our hot buttons!

SN-60
05-21-2016, 02:25 PM
I missed any insult which might have been noticed, thinking just that folks were having fun discussing our enthusiasm addled brains.;)

We all have our hot buttons!

Hardly an insult...just the 'intractable oldtimers' at it again!! :)

sals54
05-21-2016, 03:59 PM
I don't think I'll go out and burn my R4 clone GT (since STU-V in 1971) anytime soon. Great old article Bob.
Bill

Darn it.... Why did I drive my "non-factory" R3 Avanti off the cliff, just cuz it wasn't factory stock??? I shoulda kept it.

BobPalma
05-21-2016, 09:54 PM
A forum friend PM'd me to check out this thread, which I missed.

Bob & Bruce, I sincerely hope you're enjoying yourselves making fun of someone who is trying to 'set the record straight' on how many R3 and R4 passenger cars were actually sold by the Studebaker Corp.

However, I believe that the OWNERS of these cars that you 'love to hate' should be shown a little more respect!....I wonder what you two would be saying if you actually OWNED one of these rare factory Studebakers?

Think about it friends.....SN-60 ;)

;) Easy, Ed. There are a lot of Bobs on this forum, so you should identify the target(s) of your arrow(s) before you release the bow string.

If I am assumed to be the Bob to whom you are referring, you are 'way off base as I don't "hate" the subject cars at all. Hell, I helped build and now regularly transport what is probably the most famous one of all; The Plain Brown Wrapper! :D :cool: BP

Swifster
05-21-2016, 10:14 PM
This thread has so much 'win' in it... :-)

sweetolbob
05-22-2016, 07:33 AM
Darn it.... Why did I drive my "non-factory" R3 Avanti off the cliff, just cuz it wasn't factory stock??? I shoulda kept it.

Now that was a real "TRIBUTE" to the original ones.:woot:

Hawklover
05-22-2016, 08:02 AM
The "friends" have thought about it.......and think the bean town saputo needs a long vacanza.
A forum friend PM'd me to check out this thread, which I missed.

Bob & Bruce, I sincerely hope you're enjoying yourselves making fun of someone who is trying to 'set the record straight' on how many R3 and R4 passenger cars were actually sold by the Studebaker Corp.

However, I believe that the OWNERS of these cars that you 'love to hate' should be shown a little more respect!....I wonder what you two would be saying if you actually OWNED one of these rare factory Studebakers?

Think about it friends.....SN-60 ;)

SN-60
05-22-2016, 08:03 AM
;) Easy, Ed. There are a lot of Bobs on this forum, so you should identify the target(s) of your arrow(s) before you release the bow string.

If I am assumed to be the Bob to whom you are referring, you are 'way off base as I don't "hate" the subject cars at all. Hell, I helped build and now regularly transport what is probably the most famous one of all; The Plain Brown Wrapper! :D :cool: BP



Are you really saying that you feel that George Krem's 'Plain Brown Wrapper' '64 commander is a FACTORY R3 Studebaker Bob?....You actually feel that it's one of the "subject" cars :confused:

Swifster
05-22-2016, 08:14 AM
Ed, Bob is saying the exact opposite...

SN-60
05-22-2016, 08:21 AM
Ed, Bob is saying the exact opposite...

Wrong Swifster!,....The 'subject' cars are Studebakers that left the factory (Studebaker ownership) with R3 or R4 engines under their hoods......Can that be said about the 'Plain Brown Wrapper'?? :)

8E45E
05-22-2016, 08:23 AM
The Musclecar fraternity are now calling post-assembly line modifications, but done by the manufacturer's different division, or ones along the likes of Shelby and Yenko, Day 2 cars.

I would label the Granatelli/Paxton Bonneville cars as such.

Craig

SN-60
05-22-2016, 08:27 AM
[QUOTE=8E45E;991306]The Musclecar fraternity are now calling post-assembly line modifications, but done by the manufacturer's different division, or ones along the likes of Shelby and Yenko, Day 2 cars.

I would label the Granatelli/Paxton Bonneville cars as such.

Craig[/QUOTE

Well, if you can convince Nels Bove, or Ron Crall that they own "Day 2" Studebakers....more power to you.

But I, for one, strongly disagree with your proposal! :eek:

BobPalma
05-22-2016, 02:31 PM
Are you really saying that you feel that George Krem's 'Plain Brown Wrapper' '64 commander is a FACTORY R3 Studebaker Bob?....You actually feel that it's one of the "subject" cars :confused:

:eek: Well, Ed, it's a Challenger, not a Commander, for starters.

No, I don't consider it a factory R3 car and have no idea how you could conclude that was my opinion.

I know it was built as an unusual 289 / 4bbl / single exhaust / straight column three-speed car because I was with him the day we found it in stock in a back gravel storage lot at Studebaker of Indianapolis in the summer of '64, and was with him when he took delivery several days later. AND I helped him pull the original 289 out of it six months later at Palma-Riverside Ford-Mercury in Ottawa IL, after which we installed a Paxton/factory-assembled NOS R3 engine in it. We uncrated the engine there at the dealership. That is the engine that has been in it ever since. :cool: BP

BobPalma
05-22-2016, 03:33 PM
Ed, Bob is saying the exact opposite...

:) Thank you, Tom. You are correct. :cool: BP

SN-60
05-22-2016, 07:02 PM
Well friend Bob, in your post #14 you say that you don't 'hate' the subject cars....then you go on to say that you transport the most famous one of all...the PBW!

Bob Palma, take a deep breath and try to understand this,.....THE PBW IS NOT ONE OF THE 'SUBJECT' CARS!!!!!!!....It did not leave Studebaker's ownership with an R3 engine in it!!!

Ron Crall's Avanti (63R-1025), for example, DID have an R3 engine in it when sold by Studebaker...THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.....Get it??? :)

SN-60
05-22-2016, 07:20 PM
Wonder of wonders!!!.... I sent a message to 'Bob'....I told him that I cannot understand his continued resistance to the simple fact that Studebaker Corp sold more cars with R3-4 engines than the production line eleven....
He responded that the above statement was NEVER his opinion!!!!!:ohmy:

Yes, it was tough to land him, but we've finally got him 'On board'!........Atta boy Bob! :!!::!!:

BobPalma
05-22-2016, 09:21 PM
Wonder of wonders!!!.... I sent a message to 'Bob'....I told him that I cannot understand his continued resistance to the simple fact that Studebaker Corp sold more cars with R3-4 engines than the production line eleven....
He responded that the above statement was NEVER his opinion!!!!!:ohmy:

Yes, it was tough to land him, but we've finally got him 'On board'!........Atta boy Bob! :!!::!!:

:mad: Ed, this has gone on long enough. Nobody should take credit for having changed my mind because my mind has never been changed.

I posted the two sequential letters to open this thread as a form of amusement, that's all, to illustrate that the debate about R3 and R4 powered cars other than "The 11" has been going on forever. I did not write the first letter, nor did I ever agree with it or its tone. Look again: It was penned by Bob Aker, then of South Bend, not Bob Palma. Bob Aker is listed as an SDC member living in Florida in the 2015 SDC Membership Roster, but I have not had occasion to communicate with Bob for decades.

Rather, I agreed at the time (and always have and have never expressed a contrary opinion in word or print) with the words penned by my cousin George Krem in his letter dated April 5, 1972, also in this topic's opening post. Nobody has ever changed my mind about R3 and R4-powered Studebakers assembled in Studebaker's South Bend engineering laboratories or at Paxton Products' shop in California, rather than on South Bend's assembly line, as being "legitimate," because they are. That was the point George made in his letter, with which I agree. (Trust me on this: You'll have to dig awfully deep to find anything Studebaker on which George and I disagree. In fact, I can't think of anything beyond a few amusing trivialities on which we've ever sparred, and even those are just needling each other for the fun of it.)

Truth be known, even my friend Nelson Bove's R3 Commander, 64V19588, was not entirely assembled on Studebaker's regular South Bend assembly line.

Specific Instructions on that car's Production Order say, Send to Engineering for Installation of Items 22A and 37A, listed among the car's options.

Item 22A is 4 Speed Trans T 10 C 220R
Item 37A is High Performance Pkg R3

Is what has always been my opinion now understood? :rolleyes: :cool: BP

SN-60
05-22-2016, 10:51 PM
I guess this will teach you not to start posts for your own, as you say, "amusement" Bob ;)....But you're still dodging the original question...so, once again I'll ask you....

DO YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT STUDEBAKER CORP SOLD TO THE PUBLIC SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 17 to 21 R3/R4 POWERED PASSENGER CARS....AND THESE VERY SPECIAL CARS ARE INDEED FACTORY STUDEBAKERS?

Yes or no Bob? :)

Swifster
05-23-2016, 12:17 AM
I'll answer that question as NO. You have 11. A test mule is not a production car. Egbert's car came off the assembly line with a different engine in it. Even with engineering putting the final touches on Nelson Bove's Commander was built to the build sheet. Quit trying to change history to suit your fairy tale dreams.

Would I look crosseyed at George Krem's Challenger? No way! My fairy tale dream is to have George leave it to me in his will. BUT, it isn't a production built car in that configuration. That car was put together the right way...

Jessie J.
05-23-2016, 12:38 AM
A test mule is not a production car. Egbert's car came off the assembly line with a different engine in it.
You have documentation of the original engine number of Egbert's R4130 Avanti?
and the number of the engine that Paxton (allegedly) replaced it with?
What prevented that original factory supplied engine from being modified into the original 'experimental' 299 cu. in. 'R-3' ?
You have documented proof that it wasn't?

showbizkid
05-23-2016, 01:05 AM
You guys are giving me heartburn... The kind that causes me to lock threads.

Cut it it out, keep it civil and no more badgering of anyone by anyone else.

Jessie J.
05-23-2016, 01:29 AM
Would like to know if there exists any actual evidence that the engine in Egbert's 4130 was not the one it was produced with.

There must be records as this is a still existing historic vehicle for which extensive original documentation still exists. ...still searching but have not yet located actual engine numbers.

Bob Langer
05-23-2016, 08:46 AM
Would like to know if there exists any actual evidence that the engine in Egbert's 4130 was not the one it was produced with.

There must be records as this is a still existing historic vehicle for which extensive original documentation still exists. ...still searching but have not yet located actual engine numbers.

Evidence shows that it was built with RS-2333 and replaced with B-98.

Gunslinger
05-23-2016, 03:24 PM
R4130's value is based more upon not how it was originally built, but how it was changed and who ended up owning it. It's been restored twice that I know of. It's unique in numerous ways as it's different from original build and from production '64s as well. It is one-of-a-kind as a starting point for '64 changes but still different in details.

nels
05-23-2016, 04:49 PM
I think these documents are interesting. It shows the Hot Rod Road Test Car being shipped to South Bend prior to shipping to the retail customer in Michigan. Note the engine number on the shipper.

nels
05-23-2016, 04:51 PM
Sorry for the upside down shipper. I'd try to fix it but would probably screw it up.

8E45E
05-23-2016, 05:03 PM
I think these documents are interesting. It shows the Hot Rod Road Test Car being shipped to South Bend prior to shipping to the retail customer in Michigan. Note the engine number on the shipper.

Makes sense to me as why it has that R3 engine number being shipped from Paxton Products c/o Joe Granatelli.

I wonder why the instructions stated 'Hold and D & M Terminal'. Someone would have had to gone in with a check for $266.85 before they could pick it up from the Dallas & Mavis Terminal.

Craig

SN-60
05-23-2016, 05:37 PM
I think these documents are interesting. It shows the Hot Rod Road Test Car being shipped to South Bend prior to shipping to the retail customer in Michigan. Note the engine number on the shipper.

WOW!!...this is HUGE..it authenticates the fact that the HRM test car '64 Daytona Hardtop's original engine indeed was a "B" engine...AN R3 ENGINE!!! :woot:

(I wonder what the 'doubters' comeback will be to this!! ;))

SN-60
05-23-2016, 06:07 PM
You guys are giving me heartburn... The kind that causes me to lock threads.

Cut it it out, keep it civil and no more badgering of anyone by anyone else.


Clark, I know sometimes we irritate you...and I feel bad about that,.....however, have you noticed how many 'hits' there are on controversial threads such as this one?

Let's face it....people LOVE this stuff Clark!!!! :D

Dan Timberlake
05-23-2016, 06:17 PM
How do these rotated shipping papers look?

Bellingham Studenut
05-23-2016, 06:23 PM
Clark, I know sometimes we irritate you...and I feel bad about that,.....however, have you noticed how many 'hits' there are on controversial threads such as this one?

Let's face it....people LOVE this stuff Clark!!!! :D

54209

More Hits = More fun?

You might love it, but I don't think that's what Clark is saying.

SN-60
05-23-2016, 06:26 PM
54209

More Hits = More fun?

You might love it, but I don't think that's what Clark is saying.

Over 1,080 hits here Jimmy, there must be SOME interest here...wouldn't you agree:confused:

StudeDave57
05-23-2016, 06:43 PM
there must be SOME interest here...wouldn't you agree :confused:

There's interest, but sadly I think it's more of the sort you see when trains wreck or cars crash... :(




StudeDave '57 :cool:

nels
05-23-2016, 07:51 PM
WOW!!...this is HUGE..it authenticates the fact that the HRM test car '64 Daytona Hardtop's original engine indeed was a "B" engine...AN R3 ENGINE!!! :woot:

(I wonder what the 'doubters' comeback will be to this!! ;))

This car was born as an R2 but "sold by the company" as an R3.

nels
05-23-2016, 07:55 PM
By the way, B20 is still in it and running pretty good.

SN-60
05-23-2016, 08:02 PM
This car was born as an R2 but "sold by the company" as an R3.

Right!...It was sold by the Studebaker Corporation with an R3 engine under its hood......A FACTORY R3 vehicle if there ever was one! :!:

Jessie J.
05-24-2016, 02:59 AM
Studebaker is dead. Avanti is dead. The R-3 program is dead. Perhaps anyone inquiring into, and all further discussion of such matters of R-3 and R-4 engines and vehicles is only continuing beating on a dead horse, as is often alleged by detractors.
...yet in thread after thread, more historical information and previously unknown documentation continues to brought to light, supplementing our, and thus posterities collective store of knowledge concerning these rare and desirable performance Studebaker's.

At any time, the General Studebaker-Specific Discussion Forum has hundreds of threads available for perusal. And of course one may choose to open a new thread more pertinent to ones personal Studebaker inquiries and interests whatever they might be, from Studebaker watches to horse-drawn carriages, or perhaps hubcaps, rear view mirrors, or crank-up radio antennas.

No one lacking in interest in the history or details of Studebaker's R-3 & R-4 engines, or the few vehicles they were installed in, or the information that may be gleaned through perusal of such historical material, or who already 'knows everything' that they wish to know on these subjects, ever needs open or participate in any R-3 & R-4 discussion thread, where the beating of, or ongoing and detailed autopsy of our precious dead horses might offend their tender sensibilities.

Skip Lackie
05-24-2016, 07:54 AM
Studebaker is dead. Avanti is dead. The R-3 program is dead. Perhaps anyone inquiring into, and all further discussion of such matters of R-3 and R-4 engines and vehicles is only continuing beating on a dead horse, as is often alleged by detractors.
...yet in thread after thread, more historical information and previously unknown documentation continues to brought to light, supplementing our, and thus posterities collective store of knowledge concerning these rare and desirable performance Studebaker's.

At any time, the General Studebaker-Specific Discussion Forum has hundreds of threads available for perusal. And of course one may choose to open a new thread more pertinent to ones personal Studebaker inquiries and interests whatever they might be, from Studebaker watches to horse-drawn carriages, or perhaps hubcaps, rear view mirrors, or crank-up radio antennas.

No one lacking in interest in the history or details of Studebaker's R-3 & R-4 engines, or the few vehicles they were installed in, or the information that may be gleaned through perusal of such historical material, or who already 'knows everything' that they wish to know on these subjects, ever needs open or participate in any R-3 & R-4 discussion thread, where the beating of, or ongoing and detailed autopsy of our precious dead horses might offend their tender sensibilities.

Well said. But I don't think Clark was concerned about having too many threads on this subject -- as you pointed out, sometimes some new info is unearthed that makes further discussion worthwhile. What Clark was saying was that discussions of this sort (any sort, really) should be conducted in a civil (nay, maybe even polite) manner, without the "I'm right in my opinion and everyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot" statements. It's the continued expression of unchangeable opinions (and not the history of the Studebaker R3/R4 engines) that are the dead horse.

A lot of us are interested in the history of Studebaker vehicles, but would prefer not to get involved in an excrement-throwing contest. In a s--- slinging contest, even the bystanders often get soiled.

Gunslinger
05-24-2016, 08:10 AM
Well said, Skip...well said.

studegary
05-24-2016, 01:06 PM
Clark, I know sometimes we irritate you...and I feel bad about that,.....however, have you noticed how many 'hits' there are on controversial threads such as this one?

Let's face it....people LOVE this stuff Clark!!!! :D

310 people have viewed this topic and, no, it does NOT mean that people "...LOVE this stuff..."

Gunslinger
05-24-2016, 01:37 PM
310 people have viewed this topic and, no, it does NOT mean that people "...LOVE this stuff..."


But some people do love watching a train wreck. They may not comment, but enjoy the derailment nonetheless. One does have to admit, there is an element of comic relief to enjoy.

SN-60
05-24-2016, 06:00 PM
But some people do love watching a train wreck. They may not comment, but enjoy the derailment nonetheless. One does have to admit, there is an element of comic relief to enjoy.


Uh Oh!..it appears that I've ruffled someone's feathers!! :eek:

It's true that 'Old SN-60' takes on the 'hard hitting' questions,..and believe me, it isn't easy trying to correct misconceptions that have been perpetuated since the mid sixties!!

However, difficult as it is for the staid oldtimers on this forum to accept new thoughts and ideas, I strongly feel we have an obligation to the upcoming generation of Studebaker fans to at least consider, as we've done in this R3 discussion,...."THE REST OF THE STORY"!!!....SN-60:)

bob40
05-24-2016, 08:13 PM
Couldn't care less about the subject matter.
I just get my popcorn and read with amusement.

Jessie J.
05-25-2016, 12:26 AM
...."I'm right in my opinion and everyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot" statements. It's the continued expression of unchangeable opinions (and not the history of the Studebaker R3/R4 engines) that are the dead horse.
Yet is the statements, errors, and dead horse-beating bombast of the opinionated that continues to drive the search to recover the documented historical facts, and continuing input and first hand knowledge of these rare vehicles from the 'hands on' owners whom are willing to share their intricate knowledge of, and personal experiences regarding a selection of vehicles that most of us will never have the pleasure/thrill of ever personally experiencing.
When actual owners and operators like Nelson Bove, Ron Crall, Ted Harbit, George Krem and others chime in with their first hand knowledge and experience, and yes, opinions, the rest of us would be 'arm-chair Studebaker "experts" and posterity are the beneficiaries.
The life drama created by our Forum's 'characters' conflicting opinions and personalities add the spice that makes these threads such popular and interesting reading. Even if such threads are deemed by the self-ordained cognoscenti to be 'train wrecks', they none the less provide the human interest elements that draw many into returning here day after day simply to enjoy the ongoing fracas.

Studebaker Shop Manuals contain a lot of really interesting product details and technical information (not always entirely reliable or accurate) I own several and have read their contents extensively over the decades. But ...that dry assembly and statistical content soon enough becomes utterly boring.
It is the HUMAN element, that range of wonderful, often opinionated, weird and wacky enthusiastic Studebaker 'characters' that I have encountered and have interacted with over the years, that have impacted my enjoyment and views as much as, or more than the vehicles of our common interest.

Earlier in this thread in Post#30, I challenged Swifster concerning the engine in Egbert's Avanti, suggesting that its original assembly line installed R-2 was the likely base of the prototype 'R-3'. It was an uninformed OPINION, but I am certainly glad that I had this venue to present it in, where I could be corrected by the apparently knowledgeable Bob Langer as in Post #33.
Of course if the "Evidence shows that it was built with RS-2333 and replaced with B-98." I still quite naturally would be even much more pleased to have a view of, and confirm the existence of that actual material Evidence with my own eyes, rather than simply remaining depending upon a statement from a person I've never met, and of whom I know nothing at all except that he has posted here.

t walgamuth
05-25-2016, 05:37 AM
I used to spend time over at a Ferrari forum. Many of the same discussions occurred over there. If you have a Ferrari with racing history though it might be worth tens of millions of dollars, though at the time I was there they were worth much less.

Many of them had their engines changed when they were racing and some had their serial numbers changed by the factory after they were no longer competitive in racing. The factory used to take retired racers, change their serial number and hang road bodies on them and sell them as new cars. Actually pretty similar to what the Granatellis did with the Studies that ran at Bonneville.

So if you get one with such a storied history it is not always very easy to figure out what it was, what it had been and what it should be restored to. Same as here.

Much the same discussions as here, but the people over there, some of them are insufferable new rich who love to flaunt their money.

Thankfully not too many of the gold necklace crowd here.

Here folks are much more likely to wear a Studebaker t shirt, jacket or cap....much more my style.;)

8E45E
05-25-2016, 08:38 AM
Duesenbergs were often sent back to the coachbuilder to be rebodied after only two or three years for 'updating', some as many as three times. There has been debate in the Duesenberg circle on which version these particular cars should be restored; the first, or the final iteration. This debate has gone on for more than 60 years.

Craig

karterfred88
05-25-2016, 12:11 PM
Duesenbergs were often sent back to the coachbuilder to be rebodied after only two or three years for 'updating', some as many as three times. There has been debate in the Duesenberg circle on which version these particular cars should be restored; the first, or the final iteration. This debate has gone on for more than 60 years.

Craig
At least ours only goes back 45!!

studegary
05-25-2016, 02:09 PM
At least ours only goes back 45!!

How do you figure? We are primarily discussing 1964 models that were built in 1963. I see that as 53 years.

t walgamuth
05-25-2016, 02:35 PM
Duesenbergs were often sent back to the coachbuilder to be rebodied after only two or three years for 'updating', some as many as three times. There has been debate in the Duesenberg circle on which version these particular cars should be restored; the first, or the final iteration. This debate has gone on for more than 60 years.

Craig

With a Deusey I'd always restore it to the best looking version!;)

SN-60
05-25-2016, 06:48 PM
How do you figure? We are primarily discussing 1964 models that were built in 1963. I see that as 53 years.

Better brush up on your arithmetic Gary! :ohmy:....The Aker and Krem letters that the OP reprinted were dated January and May of 1972.

2016 minus 1972 equal 44 years!

At least the OP got his math right! :whome:

karterfred88
05-25-2016, 08:30 PM
How do you figure? We are primarily discussing 1964 models that were built in 1963. I see that as 53 years.
The controversy seems to have started, sometime before April 1972 as per the posted documents. Assuming some time for it to have reached a head, to cause the writing of the letter-- 1971 plus 45 is 2016. Now how much argument existed between the end of business and the letter I have no idea-nor is it of any importance.

8E45E
05-25-2016, 10:59 PM
With a Deusey I'd always restore it to the best looking version!;)

I read at least two of the Duesenbergs that had more than one body were restored that way; based on the 'best looking' in the eyes of it's owner.

Craig

studegary
05-26-2016, 01:27 PM
At least ours only goes back 45!!

Sorry, I took "ours" to mean the cars and not (as I see now) the debate (and who knows when the debate started).

studegary
05-26-2016, 01:29 PM
Better brush up on your arithmetic Gary! :ohmy:....The Aker and Krem letters that the OP reprinted were dated January and May of 1972.

2016 minus 1972 equal 44 years!

At least the OP got his math right! :whome:

It wasn't my arithmetic that was in error, it was my assumption that "ours" meant the cars (as you can see by the math that I showed).

SN-60
05-27-2016, 06:05 PM
It wasn't my arithmetic that was in error, it was my assumption that "ours" meant the cars (as you can see by the math that I showed).

Good job on the math you showed Gary! :!:

Lynn
05-29-2016, 09:55 AM
As a relative "noob" in the world of Studebakers (although I was in a car pool in 1961 that included a Lark, so maybe that makes me a veteran) I have read this thread and had to laugh a couple of times. I also was saddened by the tone in some posts. After reading the first post, I thought it was intriguing. I had no idea anyone would find it offensive.

My MAIN experience is in the muscle car arena, especially first gen Camaros. Sadly, there is some of the same type of bad blood. I was "encouraged" last year to decide which "side" to throw under the bus in a similar debate. My response was simple: Why do we need to throw anyone under the bus? Truth is, facts can be uncovered in many different ways. I believe it is healthy and productive to get all the evidence from all the sources available. In the final analysis, not everyone will agree on some of these things, mainly because we all have our own frame of reference, out own point of view, and reasonable folks can look at the same set of facts and reach different conclusions. No two people ever saw the same rainbow.

sweetolbob
05-29-2016, 10:39 AM
Lynn

Some of us are old, some of us are crotchety, some of us are legends in our own mind, some of us are experts by self proclamation, some of us are good mechanics, some of us are good body folks, some of us are quiet and unassuming, some of us are knowledgeable in Stude/Avanti history, some of us don't know a stilson from a slap hammer, some of us are young, some of us wouldn't know where the Stude engines were built, some of us put great weight on history, some of us are less interested in the lineage of the marque but we generally all have one thing and that's an opinion.

Right, wrong or indifferent it's our opinion and without any guidelines from a representative body they will only remain our opinions, no matter how long we opine or bombast on the forum. Generally it works out and sometimes it requires a source of authority to clear the air but overall it's pretty civil for the mix of folks that post here.

I've made a few friends here, have a few detractors as well but it's probably as decent a forum as one could expect considering the age and variety of we whom reside here. To expect anymore is probably fools gold.

Bob

63t-cab
05-29-2016, 12:09 PM
Kinda Sums it up Bob.


Lynn

Some of us are old, some of us are crotchety, some of us are legends in our own mind, some of us are experts by self proclamation, some of us are good mechanics, some of us are good body folks, some of us are quiet and unassuming, some of us are knowledgeable in Stude/Avanti history, some of us don't know a stilson from a slap hammer, some of us are young, some of us wouldn't know where the Stude engines were built, some of us put great weight on history, some of us are less interested in the lineage of the marque but we generally all have one thing and that's an opinion.

Right, wrong or indifferent it's our opinion and without any guidelines from a representative body they will only remain our opinions, no matter how long we opine or bombast on the forum. Generally it works out and sometimes it requires a source of authority to clear the air but overall it's pretty civil for the mix of folks that post here.

I've made a few friends here, have a few detractors as well but it's probably as decent a forum as one could expect considering the age and variety of we whom reside here. To expect anymore is probably fools gold.

Bob

SN-60
05-29-2016, 12:43 PM
As a relative "noob" in the world of Studebakers (although I was in a car pool in 1961 that included a Lark, so maybe that makes me a veteran) I have read this thread and had to laugh a couple of times. I also was saddened by the tone in some posts. After reading the first post, I thought it was intriguing. I had no idea anyone would find it offensive.

My MAIN experience is in the muscle car arena, especially first gen Camaros. Sadly, there is some of the same type of bad blood. I was "encouraged" last year to decide which "side" to throw under the bus in a similar debate. My response was simple: Why do we need to throw anyone under the bus? Truth is, facts can be uncovered in many different ways. I believe it is healthy and productive to get all the evidence from all the sources available. In the final analysis, not everyone will agree on some of these things, mainly because we all have our own frame of reference, out own point of view, and reasonable folks can look at the same set of facts and reach different conclusions. No two people ever saw the same rainbow.

Well said Lynn!...I also frequent other auto related forums....mainly MOPAR!

What is somewhat different about the SDC forum (IMHO) is that there is a core group of forum members, that were on this forum long before I, who are irritated by new ideas!!

This thread for example,...the OP feels that the history of Studebaker's R3-R4 cars ended in 1972...period!!.... I simply don't buy into that mentality!

How anyone can disagree with the recent statement....."Any Studebaker passenger car, which had an R3 or an R4 engine under its hood when it was sold by Studebaker Corp, is indeed a factory R3-4 Studebaker".... I'll never know....but it's interesting that the folks who actually own such cars seem to agree with this theory. (FACTORY, not PRODUCTION)

For way to long these vehicles were considered "Paxton Specials" and little else. I felt, (and still feel), that "Paxton" description of these cars simply wasn't fair...........SN-60

Swifster
05-29-2016, 03:16 PM
A build sheet is a build sheet and a hot rod is a hot rod, even if Granetelli put it together. I love R3 cars, ALL of them. BUT unless it has paperwork, it's not a production car...

BobWaitz
05-29-2016, 03:27 PM
...This thread for example,...the OP feels that the history of Studebaker's R3-R4 cars ended in 1972...period!!....

Fascinating. When I read the original post I see something else entirely. I see someone amused at how long this "controversy" has been discussed.

SN-60
05-29-2016, 04:42 PM
A build sheet is a build sheet and a hot rod is a hot rod, even if Granetelli put it together. I love R3 cars, ALL of them. BUT unless it has paperwork, it's not a production car...

Who said that the subject vehicles were production cars?????

This is an ongoing problem with Stude Forum posters/members,....they don't seem to actually READ the previous posts before they blurt out opinions!! :ohmy:

SN-60
05-29-2016, 04:43 PM
Fascinating. When I read the original post I see something else entirely. I see someone amused at how long this "controversy" has been discussed.

Bob, do us all a favor and read all the posts......then get back to us...OK? :)

rkapteyn
05-29-2016, 06:04 PM
:eek: Well, Ed, it's a Challenger, not a Commander, for starters.

No, I don't consider it a factory R3 car and have no idea how you could conclude that was my opinion.

I know it was built as an unusual 289 / 4bbl / single exhaust / straight column three-speed car because I was with him the day we found it in stock in a back gravel storage lot at Studebaker of Indianapolis in the summer of '64, and was with him when he took delivery several days later. AND I helped him pull the original 289 out of it six months later at Palma-Riverside Ford-Mercury in Ottawa IL, after which we installed a Paxton/factory-assembled NOS R3 engine in it. We uncrated the engine there at the dealership. That is the engine that has been in it ever since. :cool: BP


Bob
In late 1973 during the gas crises I stopped at a former Studebaker dealer in Ottawa Il to buy their left over Studebaker parts stock.
I do not remember the name of the dealer (Anderson stuck in my mind)
When I drove up in my 1961 Lark 6 a older gentleman came over and looked my car over and commented , I wished we were still selling these , they would sell like hotcakes.
After hackling about a price for his leftover Studebaker parts stock he told me that the Packard dealer used to be right across the street.
Was that your family's dealership?
He did want to keep all the high performance parts but I bought a pickup truck load of parts with a lot of accessory items.
He also told me that he kept a brand new M5 truck and a left over 1964 Hawk at the garage at his house (Streator?).
Did anyone ever see these or know what happened to these vehicles.
Robert Kapteyn

BobPalma
05-29-2016, 08:13 PM
Bob
In late 1973 during the gas crises I stopped at a former Studebaker dealer in Ottawa Il to buy their left over Studebaker parts stock.
I do not remember the name of the dealer (Anderson stuck in my mind)
When I drove up in my 1961 Lark 6 a older gentleman came over and looked my car over and commented , I wished we were still selling these , they would sell like hotcakes.
After haggling about a price for his leftover Studebaker parts stock, he told me that the Packard dealer used to be right across the street.
Was that your family's dealership?

He did want to keep all the high performance parts but I bought a pickup truck load of parts with a lot of accessory items.
He also told me that he kept a brand new M5 truck and a left over 1964 Hawk at the garage at his house (Streator?).
Did anyone ever see these or know what happened to these vehicles.
Robert Kapteyn

:) Hi, Bob: It's easy to get confused about my Father's two dealerships / franchises in Illinois.

The Packard / Nash / Studebaker dealership was in Paris IL, about 150 miles due south of Chicago along the Indiana border. That was in 1953-1956.

The Ottawa IL dealership was Palma Ford-Mercury in "downtown" Ottawa 1964-1966.

I have no idea what happened to a new M5 and/or 1964 Hawk that Ottawa dealer may have had at the time. I wasn't even aware of a Studebaker dealership in Ottawa 1964-1966 because we never moved / lived there. I was at the dealership several; times, but didn't get to "know" Ottawa at all. My brothers and me and Mom stayed in Indianapolis while Dad commuted weekly to Ottawa to run the dealership with his brother Milton, who passed away December 30, 1994.

I'm sorry I don't know any more than that. :( Thanks for asking. :cool: BP

BobWaitz
05-29-2016, 08:16 PM
Bob, do us all a favor and read all the posts......then get back to us...OK? :)

Oh, I read them, but thanks for the suggestion. I appreciate you concern that I might respond without thinking.

studegary
05-30-2016, 01:39 PM
How anyone can disagree with the recent statement....."Any Studebaker passenger car, which had an R3 or an R4 engine under its hood when it was sold by Studebaker Corp, is indeed a factory R3-4 Studebaker".... I'll never know....but it's interesting that the folks who actually own such cars seem to agree with this theory. (FACTORY, not PRODUCTION)

.SN-60

Ed - Even I, agree with this statement of yours <G>.
I think that maybe some get lost in the facory vs. production distinction.

SN-60
05-30-2016, 02:49 PM
Ed - Even I, agree with this statement of yours <G>.
I think that maybe some get lost in the factory vs. production distinction.


Thank you Gary......perhaps that is what happened.

Jessie J.
05-30-2016, 04:24 PM
Does anyone have documentation of the exact date that Paxton Division was no longer owned by, or under contract to, Studebaker Corporation?
Just seems to me, that if Paxton was still wholly owned by Studebaker Corporation in the late '60s, and that Vince Granatelli and or the others in the Granatelli operation were still selling Studebaker inventory under Contract with Studebaker and thus still being effectively remunerated as Studebaker Corporate employees, that such Studebaker performance parts inventory & and services as they were providing during this time period would be considered as being Studebaker Corporation's continuing Factory Parts and Services being provided by the Corporation's designated performance Division and vendor.

This is why I earlier raised the question as to what happened to the MONEY made off Studebaker-Paxton Divisions sales of these R-3 & R-4 engines, continued assemblies, and associated performance parts, following the ending of Studebaker automobile production in 1966?
Did it make it back into Studebaker Corporations Corporate income balance sheets and Corporate coffers?
Or did the Granatelli's just get to pocket whatever they could scavenge?

Seems to me, If the profits from Studebaker-Paxton Division's sales of leftover Studebaker inventory and installation services were still being remitted to Studebaker Corporation from the Studebaker-Paxton Division/Granatelli operations, then it would logically follow that Studebaker Corporation still receiving remuneration from these ongoing sales and operations, was in a continuance of Studebaker's Corporate ownership of it's FACTORY Authorized performance Division.
Where and when was the legal Contract between Studebaker and Paxton, and/or the Granatelli's as Studebaker Division employees/authorized Studebaker Parts and or Services providers officially and legally ended?
With respect to R-3 & R-4 engines, the wholly owned Paxton Division was the only Studebaker Corporation 'Factory'. Vince and Co. were continuing getting paid somehow.

Skip Lackie
05-30-2016, 06:17 PM
The 1967 Studebaker-Worthington annual report lists the Paxton Division in Santa Monica. The 1968 and 69 annual reports do not mention Paxton, but do show Santa Monica as one of the sites owned by the STP Division. There is no mention of Paxton being sold. So it appears that Paxton was downgraded and consolidated into STP in 1968. If that is true, the eventual disposition of Paxton may have never been important enough to be mentioned in the subsequent annual reports. I don't have any later annual reports, so don't know the date of the STP sale. In any case S-W was absorbed soon after.

8E45E
05-30-2016, 06:22 PM
I don't have any later annual reports, so don't know the date of the STP sale.

It was sold to Esmark Corp. in 1978.


There is no mention of Paxton being sold. So it appears that Paxton was downgraded and consolidated into STP in 1968.

See post #21 here: http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?92791-Interesting-group-photo-of-19-Studebaker-executives-c1963

Craig