I am glad that Studbaker failed when it did.

[gordr]

[quote]Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

Was this built by Porsche, or Studebaker?
If it was Studebaker, then I stand corrected.
(and it sure 'looks' Studebaker).
I always thought it was a Porsche project injected into Studebaker.
You learn something new every day.
Thanks for the update.
Jeff[8D]

You know, Jeff, the horizontal-opposed design sure does look Porsche, or maybe VW. I've seen this engine in the museum, and externally, it sure looks like Studebaker parts. But it would have been real easy for the Studebaker engineering shop to have designed a block and heads around a Porsche or VW crankshaft and camshaft, wouldn't it? Fairly easy to make some one-off or low production castings when you have a foundry. I expect it would more costly to make forging dies for a few crankshafts.

I wonder if the Museum, or the owner of the engine would permit a careful teardown, under the watchful eye of a video camera? It'd be almost like an archaeological dig.

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

[8E45E]

quote:Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

[navy][b]Was this built by Porsche, or Studebaker?
If it was Studebaker, then I stand corrected.

Most definitely!! There is a great write-up by one of the former engineers on the project in your September, 2005 Turning Wheels.

Craig

[8E45E]

quote:Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

[navy][b]Was this built by Porsche, or Studebaker?
If it was Studebaker, then I stand corrected.

Most definitely!! There is a great write-up by one of the former engineers on the project in your September, 2005 Turning Wheels.

Craig

[556063]

The regulatory landscape ahead of Studebaker by 1963 no doubt played into the decision to quit building cars when they did. By 1963, the Board of Directors would have had to have seen the increasing pressure for costly regulation, and the building undercurrent by some powerful forces to sway public opinion against the auto industry. I agree with you 100% tutone63.

Every investment in business is about payback. The 1957-8 development of the Lark used much of the existing technology and for a relatively small amount of money, they were able to produce something that looked all new. That was as far as the existing hardware could take them. That's why some of the designs discussed here were considered. They were more radical, and included more money and risk. Risk the Board of Directors felt was larger than the smallest car company at the time could take.

We sometimes underestimate the power of government regulation. The VW Beetle was finished in the United States by the late 1970's because it could not be made to meet exhaust regulations. It was built for the rest of the world into the year 2000. We all know the onslaught of Ralph Nader on GM's air cooled car. What bleed over effect would that have had on Studebaker's little water cooled but pancake engined car?

We were blessed with the good supply of parts, because tax laws did not allow breaks if a parts inventory was destroyed for credit in the mid 1960's. If tax advisors could have told Studebaker they could have saved millions by destroying anything in inventory 7 years or older in 1966, what do you think would have happened to our parts supply?



Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1

[556063]

The regulatory landscape ahead of Studebaker by 1963 no doubt played into the decision to quit building cars when they did. By 1963, the Board of Directors would have had to have seen the increasing pressure for costly regulation, and the building undercurrent by some powerful forces to sway public opinion against the auto industry. I agree with you 100% tutone63.

Every investment in business is about payback. The 1957-8 development of the Lark used much of the existing technology and for a relatively small amount of money, they were able to produce something that looked all new. That was as far as the existing hardware could take them. That's why some of the designs discussed here were considered. They were more radical, and included more money and risk. Risk the Board of Directors felt was larger than the smallest car company at the time could take.

We sometimes underestimate the power of government regulation. The VW Beetle was finished in the United States by the late 1970's because it could not be made to meet exhaust regulations. It was built for the rest of the world into the year 2000. We all know the onslaught of Ralph Nader on GM's air cooled car. What bleed over effect would that have had on Studebaker's little water cooled but pancake engined car?

We were blessed with the good supply of parts, because tax laws did not allow breaks if a parts inventory was destroyed for credit in the mid 1960's. If tax advisors could have told Studebaker they could have saved millions by destroying anything in inventory 7 years or older in 1966, what do you think would have happened to our parts supply?



Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1

[tutone63]

quote:Originally posted by 556063



We sometimes underestimate the power of government regulation. The VW Beetle was finished in the United States by the late 1970's because it could not be made to meet exhaust regulations. It was built for the rest of the world into the year 2000. We all know the onslaught of Ralph Nader on GM's air cooled car. What bleed over effect would that have had on Studebaker's little water cooled but pancake engined car?

We were blessed with the good supply of parts, because tax laws did not allow breaks if a parts inventory was destroyed for credit in the mid 1960's. If tax advisors could have told Studebaker they could have saved millions by destroying anything in inventory 7 years or older in 1966, what do you think would have happened to our parts supply?



Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1

I always wondered why the VW bug was dicontinued when it was, I guess I never put two and two together. Thanks also for mentioning good ole' Ralphie boy and the Corviar. I had forgotten to mention them earlier.
You are right about the parts. That woulda sucked.

[tutone63]

quote:Originally posted by 556063



We sometimes underestimate the power of government regulation. The VW Beetle was finished in the United States by the late 1970's because it could not be made to meet exhaust regulations. It was built for the rest of the world into the year 2000. We all know the onslaught of Ralph Nader on GM's air cooled car. What bleed over effect would that have had on Studebaker's little water cooled but pancake engined car?

We were blessed with the good supply of parts, because tax laws did not allow breaks if a parts inventory was destroyed for credit in the mid 1960's. If tax advisors could have told Studebaker they could have saved millions by destroying anything in inventory 7 years or older in 1966, what do you think would have happened to our parts supply?



Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1

I always wondered why the VW bug was dicontinued when it was, I guess I never put two and two together. Thanks also for mentioning good ole' Ralphie boy and the Corviar. I had forgotten to mention them earlier.
You are right about the parts. That woulda sucked.

[556063]

I am by no means or in any way a tax accountant, but I believe current law would also allow credit for the disposal of excess parts regardless of age if it could be proven that the onhand supply is likely to exceed anticipated demand. What would happen is you would take part unit sales and extrapolate them into the future, to estimate what needed to be onhand to fulfill future orders. Anything over that in inventory could be destroyed and written off for credit. It would have taken some manpower to figure all that out in 1966, but the return to the company would have been too much to ignore.

It's ironic that parts for cars from companies still in business are harder to find than Stude parts. This tax and accounting situation is partly responsible for that. Good inventory management practices are responsible for it too.

Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1

[556063]

I am by no means or in any way a tax accountant, but I believe current law would also allow credit for the disposal of excess parts regardless of age if it could be proven that the onhand supply is likely to exceed anticipated demand. What would happen is you would take part unit sales and extrapolate them into the future, to estimate what needed to be onhand to fulfill future orders. Anything over that in inventory could be destroyed and written off for credit. It would have taken some manpower to figure all that out in 1966, but the return to the company would have been too much to ignore.

It's ironic that parts for cars from companies still in business are harder to find than Stude parts. This tax and accounting situation is partly responsible for that. Good inventory management practices are responsible for it too.

Kevin Wolford
Plymouth, IN

55 Champion
60 Lark VI Conv.
63 Avanti R1

[BobPalma]

You bet, Kevin! 'Just ask the AMC enthusiasts what happened to all the 1968 (or thereabouts) and newer AMC parts when Chrysler bought AMC to get the Jeep brand! [:0][}] BP

[BobPalma]

You bet, Kevin! 'Just ask the AMC enthusiasts what happened to all the 1968 (or thereabouts) and newer AMC parts when Chrysler bought AMC to get the Jeep brand! [:0][}] BP