I believe it's time to get some controversial yet mutually beneficial discourse going. Is anyone else attracted to Studebakers not only because of their historical value and quality but also because they're a little on the ugly/ungainly/weird side? That's my rationale behind my acquisition of Daisy-Mae anyway. Just ugly and "different" enough to be really interesting and something special.
-
Jake Robinson Kaywell: Shoo-wops and doo-wops galore to the background of some fine Studes. I'm eager and ready to go!
1962 GT Hawk - "Daisy-Mae" - she came dressed to kill in etherial green with a charming turquoise inside. I'm hopelessly in love! -
Dais-Mae and all her kin are just about the least ugly vehicles ever produced by anyone.
In retrospect we may find the designs of Studebaker appear slightly a-kilter of the norm of the period. But at the time they were made they were always ahead of the curve, with the exception of a few models from the others.
And that is perhaps their appeal.Brad Johnson,
SDC since 1975, ASC since 1990
Pine Grove Mills, Pa.
'33 Rockne 10, '51 Commander Starlight. '53 Commander Starlight
'56 Sky Hawk in process -
Some of our "least favorite" Studebakers here: https://forum.studebakerdriversclub....-going-to-hurt!
And here: https://forum.studebakerdriversclub....debaker-Design
CraigComment
-
IMHO there are some, somewhat "ungainly" looking Studes. that everyone but the Owners may agree are not the "Best" design.
However NONE of them are C or K models.
In my case it's: '62 4 Door Sedan Larks and Wagons, '50 & '51 "Bullet Nose" Models, '55's of ALL Body Types, and Champ Pickups with the miss-matched 1949 Style Fendered Beds.
The funny thing is, a lot of times after you own and Drive some of these "Ungainly" Models they GROW on you!
I HAVE heard some people say of '59/'60 Larks: "they are so ugly they are Cute"!
Kind of what you are saying, but I TOTALLY Disagree!Last edited by StudeRich; 09-02-2019, 05:32 PM.StudeRich
Second Generation Stude Driver,
Proud '54 Starliner Owner
SDC Member Since 1967Comment
-
I bought my Sky Hawk because if its beautiful styling...PERIOD.
Comment
-
Alright, alright. I am not saying that all Studebakers are outright ugly. I'm saying that there's something visually appealing about them other than beauty, whatever that ethereal term really means.Originally posted by 345 DeSoto View PostI bought my Sky Hawk because if its beautiful styling...PERIOD.Jake Robinson Kaywell: Shoo-wops and doo-wops galore to the background of some fine Studes. I'm eager and ready to go!
1962 GT Hawk - "Daisy-Mae" - she came dressed to kill in etherial green with a charming turquoise inside. I'm hopelessly in love!Comment
-
I've read that dealers put large potted plants around the front of '50 "Bullet Nose" Models to reduce the shock of the new design. Then as was said above, they grow on you. As you can see, I have two of them.Perry
\'50 Business Champion
\'50 Starlight Champion
\'60 Lark Convertible,
\'63 GT R1,
\'67 Triumph TR4AComment
-
There are certain models of Studes that stick out as attractive, pleasing-to-the-eye designs.. But most of them aren't. A '32 President roadster, '41 coupe, '56 Hawk.. All very pretty cars. I've had a '53 hardtop, and on the other end of the spectrum, a '58 four door sedan, and about a dozen other different models. Can't say I bought any of them based on looks.
My current '51 for example.. The car has a giant bullet on the front and the back doors are hinged backwards. It's absolutely ridiculous. But that's why I smile every time I look at it.
Comment
-
If you don't like the way Studebakers look then sell yours and go buy a '57 Chevy. SMH....1949 Studebaker 2R5 half ton pickup...Comment
-
There are other Chevy's I would take that look much better than a '57; just as there are much better looking Studebakers over other Studebakers, be it year, model, or trim level.Originally posted by 50Champ View Post
CraigComment
-
I have a51 bullet nose and a 61 Champ with the mismatched wide bed. So I own two of the supposed “ugly” ones. I like them because they are different. I like them because they remind me of my Grandfather.
In my mind the reason they weren’t more “popular” is because they were a little too far from the main stream. Smaller bodies, different styling, etc. Most Americans want to look like everyone else.1962 Champ
51 Commander 4 doorComment
-
I've owned/restored many Studebakers and have to agree with the OP that most are on the weird side...but in a cool sort of way.
I think that AND the fact that the cars and parts are relatively inexpensive attract many of us to them.
The only ones universally regarded as ground breaking, world class designs are the 53/4 Starliners and Starlights.
Even the GTs have an engine and chassis that dates to 1951, a body from 1953, and a roof copied from the 58 Tbird. Hardly "ahead of their time". With that said, my 63 GT was one of my favorites...
Last edited by Dick Steinkamp; 09-03-2019, 06:54 AM.Dick Steinkamp
Bellingham, WAComment
-
I like Studes because they are different, and in the case of c/ks and some others, beautiful. I think some of us here are a little different than your average Ford or Chev fan.Don Wilson, Centralia, WA
40 Champion 4 door*
50 Champion 2 door*
53 Commander K Auto*
53 Commander K overdrive*
55 President Speedster
62 GT 4Speed*
63 Avanti R1*
64 Champ 1/2 ton
* Formerly ownedComment
-
I agree with 50 Champ. If you think Studebakers are ugly sell yours and get a Brand X. When I take mine to shows people stop in their tracks because they are tired of looking at 55-57 Chevys, Mustang's and muscle cars.Comment
-
My favorites, 53 and 54...looks wise, not ugly, ungainly, or particularly weird..!
Just different.
Build wise...not some of my favorites at all..! Drive trains, body and chassis construction is a different matter.
MikeComment
Comment