Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Now THIS Is What I'm Talking About!

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

  • PlainBrownR2
    replied
    You would be surprised then how many people I've surprised with the 63 Hawk JTS engine then. There's no real obvious differences as far as the public is concerned, on the Larks and R-powered Larks when all of the parts are correctly installed, including the ol' firewall tag. The only exception is the production order, where the truth of the car belies. Wrong, probably, any less cool, well, only to the owner, and he's pretty content with it . As far as driving one, well, I have one as daily transportation!!


    1964 Studebaker Commander R2 clone
    1950 Studebaker 2R5 with 170 turbocharged
    [img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00003.jpg?t=1171152673[/img=left]
    [img=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00009.jpg?t=1171153019[/img=right]
    [img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00002.jpg?t=1171153180[/img=left]
    [img=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00005.jpg?t=1171153370[/img=right]

    Leave a comment:


  • PlainBrownR2
    replied
    You would be surprised then how many people I've surprised with the 63 Hawk JTS engine then. There's no real obvious differences as far as the public is concerned, on the Larks and R-powered Larks when all of the parts are correctly installed, including the ol' firewall tag. The only exception is the production order, where the truth of the car belies. Wrong, probably, any less cool, well, only to the owner, and he's pretty content with it . As far as driving one, well, I have one as daily transportation!!


    1964 Studebaker Commander R2 clone
    1950 Studebaker 2R5 with 170 turbocharged
    [img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00003.jpg?t=1171152673[/img=left]
    [img=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00009.jpg?t=1171153019[/img=right]
    [img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00002.jpg?t=1171153180[/img=left]
    [img=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00005.jpg?t=1171153370[/img=right]

    Leave a comment:


  • StudeRich
    replied
    I disagree; a clone is going to be wrong no matter if it has an Avanti, a US, or Canadian JT or JTS transplant engine! [:0] The coolness and value would be the same! [][:0] Of course, a bit less $ than the real thing. But if you drove that thing, you would change your mind! [^]

    quote:Originally posted by PlainBrownR2

    The Avanti engine should have a JTC (Jet Thrust Canada)or JTSC (Jet Thrust Supercharged Canada), rather than the RK moniker. Others can chime in, but I dont know of any Hamilton cars leaving with JT engines. Other than that, it looks like a nice Daytona
    StudeRich
    Studebakers Northwest
    Ferndale, WA

    Leave a comment:


  • StudeRich
    replied
    I disagree; a clone is going to be wrong no matter if it has an Avanti, a US, or Canadian JT or JTS transplant engine! [:0] The coolness and value would be the same! [][:0] Of course, a bit less $ than the real thing. But if you drove that thing, you would change your mind! [^]

    quote:Originally posted by PlainBrownR2

    The Avanti engine should have a JTC (Jet Thrust Canada)or JTSC (Jet Thrust Supercharged Canada), rather than the RK moniker. Others can chime in, but I dont know of any Hamilton cars leaving with JT engines. Other than that, it looks like a nice Daytona
    StudeRich
    Studebakers Northwest
    Ferndale, WA

    Leave a comment:


  • PlainBrownR2
    replied
    Looking at the car it should fetch a fair amount. A Daytona body and an Avanti engine. Yeah it will probably go for a little less being a clone, the Daytona body+Avanti engine, rather than a full on Daytona package car. The only gripe I have is the ignition shielding, and the serial number. The ignition shielding, with the exception of some R3 cars in the early Hot Rod articles, and those were only just the guides for the spark plug wires, had none I know of. The Avanti engine should have a JTC (Jet Thrust Canada)or JTSC (Jet Thrust Supercharged Canada), rather than the RK moniker. Others can chime in, but I dont know of any Hamilton cars leaving with JT engines. Other than that, it looks like a nice Daytona


    1964 Studebaker Commander R2 clone
    1950 Studebaker 2R5 with 170 turbocharged
    [img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00003.jpg?t=1171152673[/img=left]
    [img=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00009.jpg?t=1171153019[/img=right]
    [img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00002.jpg?t=1171153180[/img=left]
    [img=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00005.jpg?t=1171153370[/img=right]

    Leave a comment:


  • PlainBrownR2
    replied
    Looking at the car it should fetch a fair amount. A Daytona body and an Avanti engine. Yeah it will probably go for a little less being a clone, the Daytona body+Avanti engine, rather than a full on Daytona package car. The only gripe I have is the ignition shielding, and the serial number. The ignition shielding, with the exception of some R3 cars in the early Hot Rod articles, and those were only just the guides for the spark plug wires, had none I know of. The Avanti engine should have a JTC (Jet Thrust Canada)or JTSC (Jet Thrust Supercharged Canada), rather than the RK moniker. Others can chime in, but I dont know of any Hamilton cars leaving with JT engines. Other than that, it looks like a nice Daytona


    1964 Studebaker Commander R2 clone
    1950 Studebaker 2R5 with 170 turbocharged
    [img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00003.jpg?t=1171152673[/img=left]
    [img=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00009.jpg?t=1171153019[/img=right]
    [img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00002.jpg?t=1171153180[/img=left]
    [img=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00005.jpg?t=1171153370[/img=right]

    Leave a comment:


  • StudeDave57
    replied
    I too have seen it with my own eyes~
    Very nice indeedy~ clone or not...


    StudeDave [8D]
    V/P San Diego County SDC
    San Diego, Ca


    '54 Commander 4dr 'Ruby'
    '57 Parkview (it's a 2dr wagon...) 'Betsy'
    '57 Commander 2dr 'Baby'
    '57 Champion 2dr 'Jewel'
    '58 Packard sedan 'Cleo'
    '65 Cruiser 'Sweet Pea'

    Leave a comment:


  • StudeDave57
    replied
    I too have seen it with my own eyes~
    Very nice indeedy~ clone or not...


    StudeDave [8D]
    V/P San Diego County SDC
    San Diego, Ca


    '54 Commander 4dr 'Ruby'
    '57 Parkview (it's a 2dr wagon...) 'Betsy'
    '57 Commander 2dr 'Baby'
    '57 Champion 2dr 'Jewel'
    '58 Packard sedan 'Cleo'
    '65 Cruiser 'Sweet Pea'

    Leave a comment:


  • Roscomacaw
    replied
    I KNEW I'd seen that name here.

    Looking at that car (and the 64 convertible that's up on ebay too), if you didn't know, you'd surely never guess that there's remnants of a 53 sedan in the mix![:0]
    I doubt the 64s could have pulled a rabbit out of the hat, but they really are a clean and stylish piece for something that's the end result of recurring facelifts![^]
    There's a heck of a bunch of Hollywood luminaries that look WAY less attractive after a similar number of "reconstructions"!

    Sure I'm biased - but that design is AS pretty (if not moreso) than any of the mid-sized offerings from the BIG3 in 1964! Too bad the '63 production glut shot the '64's possible success down in flames.[V]

    Miscreant adrift in
    the BerStuda Triangle


    1957 Transtar 1/2ton
    1960 Larkvertible V8
    1958 Provincial wagon
    1953 Commander coupe

    Leave a comment:


  • Roscomacaw
    replied
    I KNEW I'd seen that name here.

    Looking at that car (and the 64 convertible that's up on ebay too), if you didn't know, you'd surely never guess that there's remnants of a 53 sedan in the mix![:0]
    I doubt the 64s could have pulled a rabbit out of the hat, but they really are a clean and stylish piece for something that's the end result of recurring facelifts![^]
    There's a heck of a bunch of Hollywood luminaries that look WAY less attractive after a similar number of "reconstructions"!

    Sure I'm biased - but that design is AS pretty (if not moreso) than any of the mid-sized offerings from the BIG3 in 1964! Too bad the '63 production glut shot the '64's possible success down in flames.[V]

    Miscreant adrift in
    the BerStuda Triangle


    1957 Transtar 1/2ton
    1960 Larkvertible V8
    1958 Provincial wagon
    1953 Commander coupe

    Leave a comment:


  • JRoberts
    replied
    If we all had the money we wish we had so we could bid on that car, the bidding wars would be wild! What a beautiful automobile.
    Joe Roberts

    Leave a comment:


  • JRoberts
    replied
    If we all had the money we wish we had so we could bid on that car, the bidding wars would be wild! What a beautiful automobile.
    Joe Roberts

    Leave a comment:


  • jpiatchek
    replied
    I'll bet it is signifacantly less. And worth every penny!

    Leave a comment:


  • jpiatchek
    replied
    I'll bet it is signifacantly less. And worth every penny!

    Leave a comment:


  • avantilover
    replied
    It's not an "original" "R" car just rebuilt that way does that make a difference in its value?

    John Clements
    Avantilover, your South Australian Studebaker lover!!!
    Lockleys South Australia

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X