Speedster without fog lights or bumper guards - better or worse?

[PackardV8]

I'll plead guilty to having removed the front bumper guards from most of the C/Ks I've owned over the years. This restomod Speedster now on eBay certainly looks different without either the guards or the fog lights. Guess I've just gotten accustomed to the Stude King of Bling having the full Cleveland. Your thoughts?


https://www.ebay.com/itm/17517331655...4AAOSw-aFiFB41

jack vines

[Dwight FitzSimons]

Although it doesn't look "right" in terms of authenticity it certainly looks better aesthetically. Eliminating the gratuitous chrome on the front end reveals the quality of Bourke's design.

I would have also removed the spears on top of the front fenders. I probably would have left the spear on the hood because it contains the Speedster badge. The traveling music teachers during my elementary and high school years were a couple who bought a lemon & lime Speedster new and kept it many years. They passed my school bus many times during my school years. Occasionally, the parking lot of my elem school would contain two Studebakers: the Speedster and a gray '57-8 Scotsman. How's that for a contrast?
--Dwight

[sweetolbob]

Much better without all the clutter.



Bob

[Dick Steinkamp]

Much better without all the clutter.

...or REALLY declutter it by putting a 53 clip on it like Scott Hall did...

[Hallabutt]

Sorry folks I have to disagree with those who don't like the bling. I drove my car for a decade with much of it removed. In addition it was painted a pretty 1964 Studebaker blue. That was the the style in the day. When I restored it during the 70's everything went back on. Today the Speedster is an icon. Part of the what makes it special is the way it was optioned from the factory. If you don't want to own something that looks like a Speedster you might want to look for Commander htp. By the way I own one of those too.

[Lark Hunter]

I'm going to vote for keeping the frog lights and bumper guards on the Speedster. Sure, the C-K cars do lend themselves well to having less baubles and bangles, but the mission of the President Speedster was never to be clean shaven and minimalist... they were bold and glitzy from every angle (I kinda wonder if a small part of the reason Studebaker threw every accessory in the book at the Speedster model, was to use up some of the left over accessories that nobody purchased for the 1953-54 cars), and just don't look *right* with their jewelry removed. Whatever the case, I've always appreciated these cars for their audacity, and their unique position in the C-K hierarchy... an interesting twist in the history of keeping a specific bodystyle alive for 12 model years in an era where many cars changed significantly every year, and got completely new bodies every two or three years.

[Dick Steinkamp]

Sorry folks I have to disagree with those who don't like the bling.

No need to apologize. The collector car rule book states that you are allowed to like a car that another person doesn't like, and you're allowed to dislike a car another likes. It's rule 237 I think

[skyway]

Not sure the 1955’s “lend themselves” to “clean and minimalist”, C-K, Speedster, or not😉

[Dwight FitzSimons]

No need to apologize. The collector car rule book states that you are allowed to like a car that another person doesn't like, and you're allowed to dislike a car another likes. It's rule 237 I think

I have had to invoke rule #237 several times. One has to please himself, but I also adhere to rule 237.a.1, which states that it is wise to keep the original parts so the next owner can reinstall them if he desires. In other words, don't do anything that's not easily and perfectly reversible.

My 56J is going to lose its bumper guards and those parking lights (to be replaced by '62 lights).
--Dwight

[StudeRich]

We will Pray for you and your POOR taste Dwight!
Anyone who removes those Distinctive & Cool '56 European look, Parking Lights should be locked up! .

#237 is a Good Rule, works Both ways!

[bensherb]

Personally I like the bling on the Speedster, just the Speedster. I don't like the chrome "chunk" on the front of the '55. To me they look best with the grill and park light housings painted body color. Never liked the park lights on top of the front fenders on some later models but do like the fins. I even lighted them on my '62 like the later ones were, and have some of the '64 bling on it, but no bumper gaurds!

[Chris Pile]

I prefer the minimalist approach, with a smooth bumper (fore and aft).

[Noxnabaker]

I prefer a -55 to look at least like this:

But when it comes to Speedster it would be original for me.

[Dwight FitzSimons]

We will Pray for you and your POOR taste, Dwight!
Anyone who removes those Distinctive & Cool '56 European look, Parking Lights should be locked up! .

The 1956-8 C & K's are sleek, extremely modern cars, with kitchy, retro parking lamps put on there for no reason other than to make the car look different than the previous year. They are aesthetically challenged.

"European looking"? The parking lamps look like something from a 1930's American car (which must be where Studebaker's stylists (or their management probably)) got the idea.

I've changed my mind; Now I'm going to paint the headlamp rims body color too. (Again invoking rule 237.a.1.)

--Dwight

[5brown1]

The 55 fog lights are the ugliest globs of chrome ever put on a car. They make the whole car look like it will tip over forward. IMHO
Bumper guards have to go also.

[6hk71400]

Well Tom McCahill wrote about the 1956 Pontiac that it looked like it was born on it's nose