Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

59 Silver Hawk...

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

  • 59 Silver Hawk...

    Logic vs. Emotion---
    This AM looked at a 6 cylinder 59 Silver Hawk, perhaps the least attractive investment of the Hawk series. Solid car, complete, runs nice but in need of a substantial restore. Ran the numbers and I'd have close to $9,000 in it for materials to make a high driver. I'm starting to fear that the owner might take my low ball offer!

    I could have it on the road for a Driver in a month for around $6,000 and have an OK driver while I grind away on the Speedster. But to do it right will take the vehicle into no return on investment land.

  • #2
    Yes, exactly. The cost of body, paint, interior and most mechanical work is the pretty much the same for a '57 GH or your Speedster or the '59 SH. However, the ROI is usually positive on a '57 GH or Speedster and usually negative on the '59 SH. Bottom line - in real terms partial or total restoration on any Studebaker is usually not the best return on investment of time and money. We do it for the love of the marque and because there's something which calls to us.
    PackardV8

    Comment


    • #3
      I owned and drove a '58 Silver Hawk '6' for a while.....and I LOVED it! Good on gas...Easy to steer without the need for P/S....A good looking car. If You can buy it right, and it's not broken in half....BUY IT!!

      Comment


      • #4
        I owned and drove a '58 Silver Hawk '6' for a while.....and I LOVED it!
        As they say, your results may vary. I owned and drove a '56 Flight Hawk for several years and while I bought it for the looks, I ended up hating it for being so slow. The C-body was just too heavy for that little 185". It worked hard trying to keep up with traffic.

        Good on gas...
        Again, results vary. The Flight Hawk got 16 MPG and the Power Hawk 259" which replaced it also got 16 MPG.

        jack vines
        PackardV8

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by PackardV8 View Post
          As they say, your results may vary. I owned and drove a '56 Flight Hawk for several years and while I bought it for the looks, I ended up hating it for being so slow. The C-body was just too heavy for that little 185". It worked hard trying to keep up with traffic.



          Again, results vary. The Flight Hawk got 16 MPG and the Power Hawk 259" which replaced it also got 16 MPG.

          jack vines
          Then how about 'lighter steering'? the Power Hawk could not have also steered easier!...COME ON, give Me SOMETHING here Jack!!!!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Well lets see, TWO less spark plugs to buy? Two less Spark Plug Wires to buy? !!!!!!!!

            Yep, that's what I thought, it's a loser.
            StudeRich
            Second Generation Stude Driver,
            Proud '54 Starliner Owner

            Comment


            • #7
              Apologies in advance to those who own and love their 6-cyl Hawks, but that Flight/Silver Hawks found buyers when new are proof positive CASO is not a new concept.

              jack vines
              PackardV8

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by PackardV8 View Post
                As they say, your results may vary. I owned and drove a '56 Flight Hawk for several years and while I bought it for the looks, I ended up hating it for being so slow. The C-body was just too heavy for that little 185". It worked hard trying to keep up with traffic.



                Again, results vary. The Flight Hawk got 16 MPG and the Power Hawk 259" which replaced it also got 16 MPG.
                jack vines


                IIRC, the 1959 Silver Hawk six used the 170 cid engine, not the 185 cid engine. (I am NOT saying that Jack is incorrect. The 1956-1958 did use the 185 cid engine.) My point is that the C-body Hawk is even worse off with the little 170 six.

                People did buy the six cylinder 1959 Hawk. There were 2417 of them (31%).
                Gary L.
                Wappinger, NY

                SDC member since 1968
                Studebaker enthusiast much longer

                Comment


                • #9
                  At least if you buy it you know what's at stake. I feel sorry for people who buy an old car expecting to make a profit. Very few will come out ahead.
                  A car hobbyist expecting to get his money back is like a sport fisherman expecting to sell his fish for what they cost him.
                  sigpic

                  "In the heart of Arkansas."
                  Searcy, Arkansas
                  1952 Commander 2 door. Really fine 259.
                  1952 2R pickup

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This one is straight enough that if I had an extra 289 laying around, I'd think hard about an engine swap. But, that isn't exactly an afternoon job either. Or I could do a driveway paint job and new rubber then use it for a driver until the Speedster is finihed... but the Champ would be jealous. Start adding new seals and freshening up the shiny stuff and you suddenly have a busted budget.

                    I try always to do a budget and add a 15% contingency. I don't make lots of money but sans labor I always expect to cover cost.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I bet the majority of early hawks sold in Canada were six cylinders. My family had two and they were a lot slower than they looked. Unless I lift the hood on my 55 commander, most gawkers assume it's a six. Go figure.
                      Dave Warren (Perry Mason by day, Perry Como by night)

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X