From the archives #57 (1940 LA plant truckaway)

[Studebaker Wheel]

This is a single long photo but I have it separated into two parts in order to reveal more detail. Obviously truck caravans hauling new 1940 cars from the L.A. (Vernon) plant. All the trucks are Studebakers including two cab forward models.

Richard Quinn
Editor emeritus: Antique Studebaker Review

[DEEPNHOCK]

Man-o-man....
Would you look at the wheelbase on those trucks...[:0]
Imagine city driving with them?[B)]
Jeff[8D]



http://community.webshots.com/user/deepnhock
Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

[Collection Doctor]

Like Jeff the first thing that I noticed was the overall length of the rigs. Were length restrictions put in place after this?

[Avantidon]

Richard, thanks for a photo and a nice way to start a day.

[Skip Lackie]

quote:Originally posted by Collection Doctor

Like Jeff the first thing that I noticed was the overall length of the rigs. Were length restrictions put in place after this?

I can't speak for California, but length restrictions were a state responsibility until relatively recently (1970s?),when Federal rules were first enacted. Most Western states had either very liberal limits or none at all.

Skip Lackie
Washington DC

[4961Studebaker]

And those big tanks, (fuel I'm assuming?)

Like the looks of the sedan (top pic 2nd truck)

ChopStu

116 weeks till completion.

[Milaca]

Looks like a very heavy load for those underpowered trucks, I hope they had large brakes. And the side mirrors on the trucks are no larger than those used on automobiles, very small. It would take a fearless person to drive those through the mountains. Maybe that tank on the back is for compressed air for operating air brakes on the truck and trailer?


Love birds...Red Hawks in mating season.
In the middle of Minnestudea

[dictator27]

quote:Originally posted by Milaca

Looks like a very heavy load for those underpowered trucks, I hope they had large brakes. And the side mirrors on the trucks are no larger than those used on automobiles, very small. It would take a fearless person to drive those through the mountains. Maybe that tank on the back is for compressed air for operating air brakes on the truck and trailer?

Wow! Driving those trucks in tight spaces must have been interesting.

Considering the wheelbase, I'm surprised they aren't tandem axle tractors.

I believe the truck in the top picture is a '36, and the ones in the bottom one, left to right are '37, '36, ?, '36, '36, '35.

To Brent's point about lack of power, Studebaker used Waukesha engines in their large trucks up to 1936. The most powerful one, the 6-110 produced 105 hp @ 2500 rpm from 358 ci. Torque was 254 @ 1300 rpm. It was an F-head engine.

The 6BM produced 77 hp @ 2800 from 263 ci, torque was 178 @ 1100 rpm. The 6BK churned out 82 hp @ 2800 from 282 ci, with torque of 189 @ 1100. Both were flatheads.

In 1937 Studebaker changed to Hercules engines, using JXB,JXD, and WXC3 models. The most powerful was the WXC3 with 117 hp @ 2800 rpm, and torque of 288 @ 1100 from 383 ci.

The JXB produced 68 hp @ 2800 and torque of 195 @ 1000 rpm from 263 ci, and the JXD(this was the engine used in the US6)had 84 hp @ 2800 rpm and torque of 243 @ 1200. All were flatheads.

According to one source I have, rear axle ratios ranged from 4.85 to 7.8![:0] I believe 2 speed rear axles and 5 speed transmissions were available, but even so acceleration would have been slow, top speed low and hill climbing tedious at best.

Terry

[raprice]

Let's see, now which one do I want--------
Rog

'59 Lark VI Regal Hardtop
Smithtown,NY
Long Island Studebaker Club

[Invalid User Name]

I would be afraid to drive one of those trucks. Can you imagine being in an accident with all that over your head. [:0]

Doug
Venice, Florida
1950 Champion
9G F1