Studebaker Myths and Misconceptions

[BShaw]

I need your help in compiling a "TOP TEN STUDEBAKER MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS" list.

I intend to publish this top Ten list as a PDF folks can download, print, store in the glovebox and use to educate others.

I know this has been discussed at various times on the forum but I wanted to get the list pared down to those top ten that always seem to come up. So, what are the myths and misconceptions that you have had to correct time and again?

Of course, let's start with "Studebaker had Ford V/8 motors." What are the other nine?

Thanks in advance!

[jims53]

Last night at a cruse-in I found out on later Studebakers like mine they put Packard engines in them with super chargers…

Jim

[JimC]

"Look honey, a Rambler!"

No joke, in one single day, I had three people ask me about my "Rambler". One person, when I politely informed him that my Lark was not in fact a Rambler, responded, very knowingly I might add, "Well no, but they look alike because they were part of the same company after they all merged"

It seems no matter who I talk to, there's a TON of confusion over the merging of independent car makers. Nash, Hudson, Studebaker, Packard, and a pile of others were all the same company for a while, it seems, depending on who you ask

[BobGlasscock]

Bob, this is a neat idea. I'm wondering if there could be included with each myth, a factual response to disprove that myth?

[r1lark]

"They are still made in Canada, to this day."
"They were just way to far ahead of their time, that's why they failed."

[DDD]

2nd biggest myth for me would be they went out of business in 1966

alot of people like to think the company went out of business when studebaker stoppped making new cars. In reality the company had plenty of profitable divisions and did not merge with worthington until well into the 1970's. One of the reasons we have so many parts for studebakers still around is because they did not go out of business and the parts stocks were sold to other companies much later.

[BShaw]

Bob, this is a neat idea. I'm wondering if there could be included with each myth, a factual response to disprove that myth?

Yes, there will be a "fact" response and I will be asking the forum to assist in formulating the factual response. My job will be to keep it as short and clear as possible.

[BobPalma]

One of the nine myths / misconceptions I'd hope to see: Studebaker went bankrupt in 1933 as a result of the depression.

Studebaker did not go bankrupt in 1933; they went into receivership. I suppose a short legal definition of the two terms would be in order, but I don't propose to be enough of a lawyer to summarize the difference. BP

[pointer42]

Hear is one that I have heard for years. The V8 that Studebaker came out with in 1951 had its origins as as the 1949-1950 Cadillac engine which the rights and machinery to manufacture were purchased from Cadillac.

[R3 challenger]

How about the Continental engines supposedly used by Studebaker for their six-cylinder cars?

And didn't they use Ford 289s?

George

[qsanford]

"That the last two years Studebaker used Chevrolet engines in the cars." We all know they were McKinnon engines!!

[acolds]

My uncle father or relative had one just like this

[Dick Steinkamp]

"That the last two years Studebaker used Chevrolet engines in the cars." We all know they were McKinnon engines!!

This is a great myth, but unlike the others, it is one WE started

GM's St. Catharines Powertrain plant (formerly Mckinnon Industries until GM bought the facility in 1929) produced Chevy 283 V8's (along with other GM engines and rear axles) when Studebaker shifted all production to Canada. These same engines were also produced at GM's Flint and Tonawanada plants.

The engines were identical and used interchangeably by GM at their various assembly plants. You could as easily see a Chevelle with a "T" code 283 (Tonawanada) as a "K" code engine (St. Catharines). It made sense for Studebaker to source as many 283's as possible from the St. Catharines plant due to its proximity to Hamilton.

The myth WE started was that "McKinnon" 283's were special. Forged cranks (actually, all 283's had forged cranks), heavy duty bearings, higher nickel content in the blocks, beafier rods, valve rotaters, etc. etc.

In reality, GM didn't build different versions of their 195 HP 283. They were all the same. In fact, there are some indications that many of the 283's installed in Studebakers came from the Tonawanda plant (maybe Stu has info on this?). The 283's installed in Studebakers did not have the plant ID stamped in the block like those installed in GM cars and trucks...only the sequential serial number...so it is impossible to tell now.

I don't think we could live with the fact that our Studebakers had run of the mill Chevy engines...so we MADE them special and called them Mckinnons.

I think there are other myths that we invented (extraordinary mileage and top speed claims among them), but I don't think these sort of myths are what Bob is after. There are plenty of myths that we haven't invented.

[Dick Steinkamp]

The beautiful 53 coupes and hardtops were designed by Raymond Loewy. (actually Bob Bourke)

[Pat Dilling]

My uncle father or relative had one just like this

Except it was a 4 door and it was green