Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Differences between a 63 and 60 convertible frame?

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

  • jpepper
    replied
    The 1/2 inch difference was done by moving the spring center pin. The middle of the frame did not change.

    Leave a comment:


  • studefan
    replied
    Thank you all. I will continue to look for a 1962 and later frame.

    Leave a comment:


  • studefan
    replied
    Ken, I am asking about the actual car frame that the body mounts to.

    Thanks for all the responses so far.

    Leave a comment:


  • thunderations
    replied
    Is the original poster asking about the convertible top frame/bows or the actual car frames? Seems a little confusing to me. Need some clarification.

    Leave a comment:


  • Studebakercenteroforegon
    replied
    Originally posted by Warren Webb View Post
    Compare the frame dimensions in the shop manual. I believe the wheelbase 1/2" inch was made with a change in the rear leaf springs, putting the rear axle back that much.
    Correct - for 1962 and later models the rear leaf spring centerbolt was moved rearward 1/2”, thus increasing the wheelbase 1/2”. Remember this when replacing rear springs - make sure you have a matching pair.

    Leave a comment:


  • Warren Webb
    replied
    Compare the frame dimensions in the shop manual. I believe the wheelbase 1/2" inch was made with a change in the rear leaf springs, putting the rear axle back that much.

    Leave a comment:


  • swvalcon
    replied
    If the body mounts are in the same place on the frame I wouldn't worry about a half inch one way or the other on the wheel base. You could cheat a half inch.

    Leave a comment:


  • 6hk71400
    replied
    Thanks for the correction Rich. I sent my copy of Studebaker the Complete Story to Jake in Florida. I will have to get another copy as it is my go to guide.
    My 62 has a wheelbase only 2 inches shorter than my 52 Commander 4 door. Someday when the muse strikes, I want to do a story about what a difference 10 years make in comparing the two cars.

    Bob Miles
    Pacific Southwest Zone Coordinator

    Leave a comment:


  • StudeRich
    replied
    Originally posted by 6hk71400 View Post
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I think in 1962 the two door models went from 108.5 Wheel Base to 109 Wheel Base. The four doors all went to the Wagon/Cruiser wheelbase of 112./Cut/Bob Miles
    Pacific Southwest Zone Coordinator
    Ah, make that 113 Inches Bob.

    Leave a comment:


  • 6hk71400
    replied
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I think in 1962 the two door models went from 108.5 Wheel Base to 109 Wheel Base. The four doors all went to the wagon wheelbase of 112. I don't know if that would make much different but as Rich pointed out, it would appear that there would have to be some modification to the 60 frame to have it work on the 63 frame.

    16 years later, GM on their intermediates went to around the same wheelbase set up on the two and four door cars. Studebaker was ahead by 16 years.

    Bob Miles
    Pacific Southwest Zone Coordinator

    Leave a comment:


  • StudeRich
    replied
    It would be all about how they lengthened both the Front End and the Rear end of the frame and or Bumper Brackets to fit the longer body, the center portion would be a Match.

    UPDATE: Due to the added info in Post #3 & 7, it looks like a Total NO Fit.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	60 Conv Yellow 5.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	87.2 KB
ID:	1728885 Click image for larger version

Name:	White Convert5.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	171.4 KB
ID:	1728886
    Last edited by StudeRich; 07-24-2019, 12:18 PM. Reason: 1962 Wheelbase Change

    Leave a comment:


  • studefan
    started a topic Differences between a 63 and 60 convertible frame?

    Differences between a 63 and 60 convertible frame?

    Are there any differences between a 1963 Lark convertible frame and a 1960 Lark convertible frame? If so, what might they be?
Working...
X