Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Newman & Altman Trucks tooling?

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

  • StudeNewby
    replied
    Originally posted by Skip Lackie View Post
    Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I have only a little to offer.
    Much obliged, Skip. Every little bit is more than I knew before.

    Leave a comment:


  • S2Deluxe
    replied
    Originally posted by StudeRich View Post
    This one is also Cool:
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]81875[/ATTACH] It was built in Uraguay, with local version matching Box.
    That's currious, it looks like, tail lights were just an extra cost option, in Uraguay? It is a decent looking bed though.

    Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • 8E45E
    replied
    Originally posted by Skip Lackie View Post
    Second, there's a note that states (in caps): PECULIAR PARTS NOT RELEASED FOR T1 AND T2 COWL". The point there was that the C-cab trucks could be ordered not just with a full cab, but also as a cowl unit, with or without windshield (A1 and A2). Studebaker sold a few of these units for use as delivery trucks, and apparently did not think the market justified the tooling expense to make such models on the T-cab platform. I guess they felt that they had to offer a full line of models if they were gonna market them as commercial vehicles.
    I wonder if the Champ 'Dune Scooters' in Michigan were ordered as an 'A2' cowl. https://forum.studebakerdriversclub....=michigan+dune

    Craig

    Leave a comment:


  • Skip Lackie
    replied
    Originally posted by StudeNewby View Post
    Why DIDN'T Studebaker use the Champ cab on trucks larger than 3/4 ton? Perhaps Skip can fill us in, or someone else in the know.
    Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I have only a little to offer. I do have a copy of a single sheet entitled "1960 Truck Model Information", dated 11-6-59, by S.M. Zmyslo. Based on the stamp on the back, Dick Quinn had/has the original document. It is just a table listing truck chassis model, available wheelbases and engines, and the cab style (T1, C2, A1, A2, etc). Nothing unknown in the listing, but there a couple of interesting notes and omissions.

    In response to the question above, the T cabs are labelled "Light series cab" and the only remaining 1960 (1, 1.5., and 2-ton) C-cab models are labelled "Heavy series cab". There apparently was a desire to distinguish between the El Camino-like Champs and the heavy haulers that still used the C cab. (Nice try, but we all know that the Champs were built on truck underpinnings, while the El Caminos were really a car chassis with a box instead of a back seat and trunk.)

    Second, there's a note that states (in caps): PECULIAR PARTS NOT RELEASED FOR T1 AND T2 COWL". The point there was that the C-cab trucks could be ordered not just with a full cab, but also as a cowl unit, with or without windshield (A1 and A2). Studebaker sold a few of these units for use as delivery trucks, and apparently did not think the market justified the tooling expense to make such models on the T-cab platform. I guess they felt that they had to offer a full line of models if they were gonna market them as commercial vehicles.

    Third, the table has extra lines (not filled in) that were reserved for the basic specs of 4WD Champ half- and 3/4-ton pickups. There's a note that says: "4-Wheel Drive removed from Light Series Cab Trucks". So they had made a conscious decision NOT to offer 4WD on the T-cabs -- some time after the table was prepared.

    Leave a comment:


  • lschuc
    replied
    I did look good.... wish we knew where it ended up.

    Originally posted by skyway View Post
    "use the current (1964) style sheetmetal to upgrade the Champ"

    Helped a friend do this 30+ years ago.
    As I recall the dog house (that is less the hood) was a bolt on at the cowl.
    Issue with the hood was the differences in the "line" of the cowls. He solved that by grafting the rear few inches of the Champ hood onto the rest of the '64 hood.
    Fresh air to the heater was also an issue.
    Lastly, the front of the front fenders was much higher than the truck frame. Solved that with blocks, but you could not make either the truck or car front bumper look right. Bumper bolted to the frame sat too low compared to the front (headlight/grill) sheet metal.
    No pictures, but despite all this it look pretty good.

    Leave a comment:


  • StudeNewby
    replied
    Originally posted by StudeRich View Post
    This 1 Ton Dually Champ would have been Cool if they had chosen to Produce it.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]81878[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]81879[/ATTACH]
    But at least people would not be able to B**** (complain) about the "Box Width"!
    Why DIDN'T Studebaker use the Champ cab on trucks larger than 3/4 ton? Perhaps Skip can fill us in, or someone else in the know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dwight FitzSimons
    replied
    Originally posted by George Gratton View Post
    Studebaker would need to do a lot more than "allow" 64 front ends to be used for trucks. First off, they don't fit! I would take a lot of engineering to do it, and there was no $ to do it, even if some fool thought they would sell well enough. Then they would need Studebaker to send the body parts from Hamilton to So. Bend. Simply was not gonna happen. It was never a viable plan. My neighbor was a S.B. Indiana Studebaker family (and a PHD engineering guy) that told me of a plan (date unknown) to do over the cab using 1961 or 2 Lark parts, making a 4 headlight "modernization" of Champ. Those parts fit and needed no permission at the time., Some more effort was considered for swing pedals and cab enlargement by using 2 dr. sedan doors in T cab configurations, Included was swinging brake pedal and a really dumb looking clutch through the floor, that I believe they (thank God) trashed as an idea. Years ago I recall a 64 Studebaker "El Camino" privately made, and quite professional looking. I believe it had independent fron suspension, but now sure. That is what Studebaker would have needed to do to effectively "modernize" Champ. Way to expensive.

    The rear of the hood changed when Studebaker put cowl ventilation onto the Lark in 1961. That's why one can't put a '61 or later hood on a 59-60 Lark. And, vice versa. The Champ used the 59-60 Lark body shell all the way through 1964. So, putting the 1961-63 quad headlights on a Champ would be quite a chore and would have entailed sheet metal stamping changes for Studebaker. Note that the grille was widened in '61 too, so the hood has a wider bulge at the front.
    -Dwight

    Leave a comment:


  • StudeRich
    replied
    This 1 Ton Dually Champ would have been Cool if they had chosen to Produce it.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	8E13 T Cab2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	20.2 KB
ID:	1728472 Click image for larger version

Name:	8E13 T cab1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	13.7 KB
ID:	1728473
    But at least people would not be able to B**** (complain) about the "Box Width"!

    This one is also Cool:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Uruguay Champ.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	46.2 KB
ID:	1728469 It was built in Uraguay, with local version matching Box.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	63 Concept COE Pickup1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	17.6 KB
ID:	1728470 Click image for larger version

Name:	63 Concept COE Pickup1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	32.7 KB
ID:	1728471

    Or this "Cab Forward" Concept, Compact Truck Prototype, but it needed a bit of "beautification" to become saleable.

    If I could find my Old Film Camera negatives or Photos from the Portland, OR International Meet, I HAD Photos of the really Nice Blue Champ with a '64 Wagonaire Cab and Nose welded to a '60-'64 Champ Rear Panel on a stock Champ Chassis.
    Last edited by StudeRich; 06-20-2019, 02:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • swvalcon
    replied
    How much did studebaker change the actual body shell from 60 to 64? If the body was the same but just a change on the firewall and front clip. Just take a 4dr 64 body cut behind the door post up though the roof and put the champ rear cab panel on it. Only rework would be where it meets the door.

    Leave a comment:


  • skyway
    replied
    "use the current (1964) style sheetmetal to upgrade the Champ"

    Helped a friend do this 30+ years ago.
    As I recall the dog house (that is less the hood) was a bolt on at the cowl.
    Issue with the hood was the differences in the "line" of the cowls. He solved that by grafting the rear few inches of the Champ hood onto the rest of the '64 hood.
    Fresh air to the heater was also an issue.
    Lastly, the front of the front fenders was much higher than the truck frame. Solved that with blocks, but you could not make either the truck or car front bumper look right. Bumper bolted to the frame sat too low compared to the front (headlight/grill) sheet metal.
    No pictures, but despite all this it look pretty good.

    Leave a comment:


  • George Gratton
    replied
    Studebaker would need to do a lot more than "allow" 64 front ends to be used for trucks. First off, they don't fit! I would take a lot of engineering to do it, and there was no $ to do it, even if some fool thought they would sell well enough. Then they would need Studebaker to send the body parts from Hamilton to So. Bend. Simply was not gonna happen. It was never a viable plan. My neighbor was a S.B. Indiana Studebaker family (and a PHD engineering guy) that told me of a plan (date unknown) to do over the cab using 1961 or 2 Lark parts, making a 4 headlight "modernization" of Champ. Those parts fit and needed no permission at the time., Some more effort was considered for swing pedals and cab enlargement by using 2 dr. sedan doors in T cab configurations, Included was swinging brake pedal and a really dumb looking clutch through the floor, that I believe they (thank God) trashed as an idea. Years ago I recall a 64 Studebaker "El Camino" privately made, and quite professional looking. I believe it had independent fron suspension, but now sure. That is what Studebaker would have needed to do to effectively "modernize" Champ. Way to expensive.

    Leave a comment:


  • qsanford
    replied
    Originally posted by studegary View Post
    Studebaker wouldn't have had to "allow them". N&A bought all of the rights to the Avanti and the trucks.
    They might have had to agree to let them use the current (1964) style sheetmetal to upgrade the Champ.

    Leave a comment:


  • studegary
    replied
    Originally posted by qsanford View Post
    I wonder if Studebaker would have allowed them to update the Champ with a 1964 style front end treatment? That would have been salable for a few more years I would think.
    Studebaker wouldn't have had to "allow them". N&A bought all of the rights to the Avanti and the trucks.

    Leave a comment:


  • fastjohnll
    replied
    A man named Bill Bauman did this back in the 80's. According to the article , it took quite a bit of work to make everything fit properly. The end result looked good.

    Leave a comment:


  • qsanford
    replied
    I wonder if Studebaker would have allowed them to update the Champ with a 1964 style front end treatment? That would have been salable for a few more years I would think.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X