Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

63 One Ton Truck

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

  • 63 One Ton Truck

    Not mine, but what year is this truck? Nice to look at for sure.http://missoula.craigslist.org/cto/6234293213.html

  • #2
    Could be a '63 - serial number would determine that. Lots of work involved in getting it to where it is now.

    Comment


    • #3
      Nice looking truck. And to add to another post we have going, the sun visor is a Fulton. They made millions of them, it seems.

      https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fro...visor&_sacat=0
      RadioRoy, specializing in AM/FM conversions with auxiliary inputs for iPod/satellite/CD player. In the old car radio business since 1985.

      17A-S2 - 50 Commander convertible
      10G-C1 - 51 Champion starlight coupe
      10G-Q4 - 51 Champion business coupe
      4H-K5 - 53 Commander starliner hardtop
      5H-D5 - 54 Commander Conestoga wagon
      56B-D4 - 56 Commander station wagon
      60V-L6 - 60 Lark convertible

      Comment


      • #4
        WOW it's BAAAAAACK! It has been how many years now, 5 or 6? since it was for Sale the last time. The First time was when I was drooling all over my keyboard at that Custom Built truck and asking the daughter of the owner exactly WHAT he did to create this beautiful Champ Wide Box with narrow Box Fenders on a 8E13-131 1 Ton Dually Transtar. No definitive answer there, the Dad had passed.

        The big question is; did he shorten the Wheelbase from 131 to 122 or stretch the Box to 9 Feet! I am thinking the latter.

        It's a 5 Speed New Process Overdrive 289 it has a Dana 60 or a Dana 70 TT and Bendix Style Star Wheel adjusted, late '62-'64 Brakes, a "blown up to 13 Inches" exact copy of the '54 to '66 Car drum Brake.

        Wow, how time flies, these are From April 2004 THIRTEEN YEARS ago, she sent them to me by request!

        Click image for larger version

Name:	63Transtar1ton5.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	35.4 KB
ID:	1715770 Click image for larger version

Name:	63Transtar1ton4.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	84.9 KB
ID:	1715771 Click image for larger version

Name:	63Transtar1ton7.jpg
Views:	4
Size:	29.6 KB
ID:	1715772 Click image for larger version

Name:	63Transtar1ton_g.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	114.6 KB
ID:	1715773 Click image for larger version

Name:	63Transtar1ton1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	114.1 KB
ID:	1715775Click image for larger version

Name:	63Transtar1ton_f.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	124.8 KB
ID:	1715774

        UPDATE 07/28/17 3:37 PDT: confirmed, the seller says it IS a lengthened 9 Ft. Box and Custom made 9 Ft. Camper Shell.
        Last edited by StudeRich; 07-28-2017, 03:37 PM.
        StudeRich
        Second Generation Stude Driver,
        Proud '54 Starliner Owner

        Comment


        • #5
          I looked at this truck when it was for sale 10-12 years ago. I was the high bidder on ebay, but it did not hit reserve. I was still interested enough in it to take a whole day off from the Spokane meet to drive over to Missoula to look at it. The lady that owned it had inherited it from her father [edit: grandfather], and a friend had given her a rather inflated view of its value. It had started out as a SD highway dept 8E-13 1-ton pickup. She said that her father had done all of the work, but I have since learned that most of the conversion work was done by a man in Kansas, and that it was sold to the man in Missoula by Vern Ediger. I believe it has a Dana 70 axle. The dual wheel conversion was nicely done with Stude P1 rear fenders added to a P2 bed to cover the outer wheels. I thought it still had the original 259, but Vern Ediger said it had a 289 in it when he owned it.

          All in all, the work was very nicely done, with the P2 bed, NP 5-spd/OD trans, Lark air conditioning, custom-made camper, plenty of chrome, spotlights, sun visor, running boards, bumper guard, Corvette yellow paint, etc. There was almost no rust. It was unique -- I really liked it and did not find much that I would want to change. However, even 12 years ago, it showed the signs of long-term storage. It ran badly, only a couple of the brakes worked, and it looked rather shabby overall. The climate in Missoula is pretty dry, so maybe it hasn't deteriorated any further.

          If I were 10 years younger, I'd try to buy it again -- but not at that price. However, I would encourage anyone who finds it attractive to take a serious look at it -- you'll be the only one on your block to have one.

          I have often wondered what happened to it -- now I know.
          Last edited by Skip Lackie; 08-01-2017, 03:51 PM.
          Skip Lackie

          Comment


          • #6
            That's a one-ton I'd love to have!
            Home of the famous Mr. Ed!
            K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Studebaker!
            Ron Smith
            Where the heck is Fawn Lodge, CA?

            Comment


            • #7
              The price in the original ad (last week) was $14,250. Price in the above-linked ad is $12,250.
              Skip Lackie

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Skip Lackie View Post
                The price in the original ad (last week) was $14,250. Price in the above-linked ad is $12,250.
                From a purely aesthetic/conceptual view, what's not to like about this truck? If it were not for being considerate to my wife, and the things she would rather do with the money, I'd be attempting to engage the seller in some serious negotiation. However, there are some red flags here. Why, as stated in the ad, would someone "restore" such a vehicle, and then shut it away in storage for two decades??? What's wrong? How is it's "drive-ability?" How is the ride?

                I have a basic 1955 "C" cab truck (E5). It was my very first Studebaker. It is what I refer to as an "honest" vehicle. By that, I mean it has zero pretense of being other than a somewhat primitive transport tool. Everything about it is about as rugged and basic as an "ANVIL." Unlike modern trucks, or cars, there was no attempt to soften the steering, clutch, and brake effort, nor give you sofa plush seat for your tender butt. Looking at the underside of this truck, I don't see any rear shocks? However, I know it is a much heavier duty truck than mine, so perhaps someone more versed in the heavier suspensions can explain.

                My concern is that I can't imagine a Studebaker Truck fan, with the wherewithal to purchase this vehicle, who wouldn't jump at the opportunity to show up in such a cool looking vehicle. That is, unless there is some downside, some unseen fault, that renders the price a "journey too far!" Normally, I am not a fan of those traditional exterior sun visors...always thought they distracted from the design flow of nearly any vehicle wearing one. But, this truck, wearing the "Baseball Cap," adds to the "Cool" factor.
                John Clary
                Greer, SC

                SDC member since 1975

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by jclary View Post
                  From a purely aesthetic/conceptual view, what's not to like about this truck? If it were not for being considerate to my wife, and the things she would rather do with the money, I'd be attempting to engage the seller in some serious negotiation. However, there are some red flags here. Why, as stated in the ad, would someone "restore" such a vehicle, and then shut it away in storage for two decades??? What's wrong? How is it's "drive-ability?" How is the ride?

                  I have a basic 1955 "C" cab truck (E5). It was my very first Studebaker. It is what I refer to as an "honest" vehicle. By that, I mean it has zero pretense of being other than a somewhat primitive transport tool. Everything about it is about as rugged and basic as an "ANVIL." Unlike modern trucks, or cars, there was no attempt to soften the steering, clutch, and brake effort, nor give you sofa plush seat for your tender butt. Looking at the underside of this truck, I don't see any rear shocks? However, I know it is a much heavier duty truck than mine, so perhaps someone more versed in the heavier suspensions can explain.

                  My concern is that I can't imagine a Studebaker Truck fan, with the wherewithal to purchase this vehicle, who wouldn't jump at the opportunity to show up in such a cool looking vehicle. That is, unless there is some downside, some unseen fault, that renders the price a "journey too far!" Normally, I am not a fan of those traditional exterior sun visors...always thought they distracted from the design flow of nearly any vehicle wearing one. But, this truck, wearing the "Baseball Cap," adds to the "Cool" factor.
                  I think there's a lot to like about this truck. In fact, having looked at it rather closely (albeit more than a decade ago), I agree with nearly all of the mods that one of the previous owners made. However, in my case: (1) I'm 12 years older than I was when I almost won it on ebay, (2) It's apparently been sitting unused for almost all of that time; and (3) It's still 1500 miles away and clearly not up to being driven back to the East Coast.

                  The history of the truck is a bit hazy, but it has been at least 15 years since it was restored/modified. The lady that owned it when I looked at it believed that her deceased [edit: grandfather] father had made all the mods, but that info may be somewhat garbled. It now appears that nearly all of the work was done by a man in Kansas, and that it passed through the hands of well-known Stude collector Vern Ediger on its way to Missoula. I had/have the production order (though I haven't seen it in a long time), and it was built as an 8E-13 with single rear wheels for the South Dakota Highway Dept. I drove it (albeit briefly), and it rides like a one-ton Stude truck: slightly more comfortably than a buckboard.
                  Last edited by Skip Lackie; 08-01-2017, 03:52 PM.
                  Skip Lackie

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Agree, I love the look and if one wants exactly that combination, it's a bargain.

                    However, based on experience with these trucks, it's much better to look at than it would be to drive empty/casually. There's the 1-ton springs, Dana 70 and 5-speed, which definitely makes it ride and drive like a BIG TRUCK. Then, there's the pickup box and canopy, which means there's effectively no way to payload those springs, axle and transmission.

                    Many here buy big trucks with no plans to work them; only reason I mention it is a friend bought an M15 and was continually frustrated it wasn't a Camry.

                    jack vines
                    PackardV8

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Agree with all as for the looks and cool factor. I love big trucks. There are some guys on the 67-72 chevy truck site doing similar things with big Chevy trucks, making them look like factory pick ups. Some incredible workmanship. They are in this forum entitled HEAVY HAULERS: http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/f...play.php?f=239

                      However, Jack nailed it: "Then, there's the pickup box and canopy, which means there's effectively no way to payload those springs, axle and transmission."
                      There is virtually no utilitarian use for this truck. Big trucks, as cool as they are, take up a lot of room. Part of why I keep my big truck even though it crowds my garage a little, is because all the things I can do with it. My 49 farm truck still has the dump bed which can be converted to flat bed in less than 5 minutes. I have hauled sod, gravel, dirt, and even a 15 foot tall tree with an 800 pound root ball (that was fun, planting that tree.... my son kept saying "you know Dad, they sell smaller trees!")

                      Showed my wife a pic of this cool looking yellow and white truck. She immediately said: "I like yours better." I am, however jealous of the New Process OD 5 speed. I have a NP 5 speed, but it is not the od model. If I ever run across an NP OD 5 speed, I will certainly consider swapping it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        In my case the bed is no impediment at all. The shell would have to come off and I would install a hide-away goose-neck ball. One of my trailers (bumper pull) has a thousand pound tongue weight, so that's not even going to phase this truck. As a matter of fact, this old fellow would be perfect for a nut-case like me...

                        Home of the famous Mr. Ed!
                        K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Studebaker!
                        Ron Smith
                        Where the heck is Fawn Lodge, CA?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The driver's side door visor has gone missing (shows in Rich's photos).
                          KURTRUK
                          (read it backwards)




                          Nothing is politically right which is morally wrong. -A. Lincoln

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The only criticism I have of this truck is it isn't parked on my property.
                            Bill

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Buzzard View Post
                              The only criticism I have of this truck is it isn't parked on my property.
                              Bill
                              You can solve that!... Then, my only criticism will be that it is parked in YOUR property!
                              John Clary
                              Greer, SC

                              SDC member since 1975

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X