1969 Excalibur

[StudeMichael]

Note that even on the 1969 Series One Excalibur they were still using GT Hawk gauges and a Studebaker powershift gear selector assembly. Also, the SS badge is a carryover from the Studebaker SS and is on the side of the cowl.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Other-Makes-Other-Roadster-Co-1969-Excalibur-SS-Series-I-Roadster-Convertible-/271237192311?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item3f26ff1a77&vxp=mtr

[r1lark]

Oh Man, this thing is SWEET!!!!

Wish I had the money sitting around............

[Xcalibur]

Ah yes, but the die was cast by then since 1969 was the last year of the Series 1... regrettably. Nary again would we see the likes. The Stevens kids saw the future and it wasn't what they were building at that time. As is often the case, they decided to "follow the money." And, made it work for a loooooong time. However, I'd not trade my Series 1 SSK for a dozen of the later ones (of any series) if I had to keep and drive 'em.


I just looked at the one you posted at ebay, StudeMichael, and one might wonder what they did with the battery, since it is missing from the top-right of the firewall--where all the acid has run down in the engine-compartment pic. There isn't a lot of room to put one anywhere else!!!

Since you mentioned the gauges, somewhere along the way the small ones have been "split" and aren't mounted in pairs like with GTs and the earlier X's.

[SN-60]

Wow!.....Look at the odd placement of the emergency brake handle......'long armed' drivers only need apply!

[JimC]

Man, what a cool car. Excalibur's rank very high on my list of dream cars.

[Xcalibur]

Many, even Stude aficionados, are unaware of the Studebaker lineage. When I bought mine most had no idea what I was doing or why, "I thought you were into Studes," being the single most common reply--right after, "What the *^#@ is that?" When I explained the heritage and continued use of the chassis through 1969--everyone was shocked, and these weren't just "young kids," by any means. Old stuff is lost to most and when it was rare stuff (97 no-door models built) to begin with, it's "all new" to nearly everyone today. I have found only one person who knew what an X was/is and he attended the 1964 NY Auto Show when the prototype debuted and still has the handouts. He is a rarer bird than the car, hehehehe!!!

SN-60, no, one doesn't need long arms to use the parking-brake, it isn't far across the "cockpit," only 40.5", at the front of the seats.

[SN-60]

Black with the red trim looks great on this Excalibur!

[Xcalibur]

Thanks, SN-60.

Black with red interior would not have been my first choice, but it isn't like one has a lot of choice, at this point. I've followed no-door X's for decades and most that sell publicly are usually pretty ragged--like the SS (doored-version) cited at the start of this thread. I like the very early promo-pix of the black/black Series 1's the best, but I've found that the red has sort of grown on me... and, I just couldn't find a better one for sale.

[StudeMichael]

What makes the one I posted a "ragged" example. It looked pretty nice to me!

Thanks, SN-60.

most that sell publicly are usually pretty ragged--like the SS (doored-version) cited at the start of this thread.

[spokejr]

I'll take the earlier one;

http://auctionsamerica.com/events/feature-lots.cfm?SaleCode=BB13&ID=r463&Order=runorder&feature=&collection=&grouping=&category=

Can't you just see Phyllis driving down Sunset with her big hair and the cigarette holder clenched in her teeth, looking like the cat who just ate the canary? You've got to admit, the car has a certain Cruella Deville look to it.

Cheers,

Ken

[StudeMichael]

Nice car but I don't care for the square back end on this model.

I'll take the earlier one;

http://auctionsamerica.com/events/feature-lots.cfm?SaleCode=BB13&ID=r463&Order=runorder&feature=&collection=&grouping=&category=

Can't you just see Phyllis driving down Sunset with her big hair and the cigarette holder clenched in her teeth, looking like the cat who just ate the canary? You've got to admit, the car has a certain Cruella Deville look to it.

Cheers,

Ken

[Xcalibur]

StudeMichael, to respond to your question/comment ("What makes the one I posted a "ragged" example. It looked pretty nice to me!"), please understand, of course, that everyone's evaluation--of anything--is going to differ based on many factors. I will give you my perspective on this one--only because you asked. Btw, if one is used to "like new" vintage cars, even a several year old "used car" that others think is fine can look pretty ragged.

In the case of the noted '69 X I'd first direct your attention to the engine compartment, which is, in my evaluation... a mess. I mentioned the missing battery shelf earlier in this thread and the obvious battery acid damage to the firewall (and, WHERE exactly IS the battery now, btw? I was serious; there is little room anywhere else for one). To continue... The air-cleaner is non-original and the entire engine compartment rusty and unkempt. And, notice the numerous chips along the trailing edge of the fan-shroud. On the plus side it DOES still have the shroud (many don't) and it has the original (or like original) plenum exhaust manifolds, but of questionable condition judging by their surroundings and rust. Also, it seems to have a short instead of long water-pump which probably necessitates the fan spacer used. The rocker-arm covers also appear to be aftermarket; the "winged" hold-downs certainly are. And, as I say, the entire engine compartment appears "very rough," in my evaluation.

There is more, of course, such as the fabricated "heat shields" over the exhausts at the doors. Also, it seems to have the rear-deck holes (or something at those spots) for the luggage rack, which is missing, along with the mounts that attach to the holes/plugs/whatever. Inside, the door-panels appear scuffed and the carpet faded. There is a poorly attached (coming loose, actually) non-original metal rub piece attached to the center console by the accelerator pedal. There is a similar piece of metal on the opposite side of the drivers foot area that appears corroded. The thrown in, obviously non-fitted floor mats make it impossible to see the condition of the carpet in the most wear-prone areas, figure it is worn through judging by the rest of the car (and, probably why the rub-plates where screwed on). Also, there is no sign of the top boot (another oft missing piece) that encloses the top when down.

Obviously, there are many things we really cannot judge adequately from the pix, such as condition of the paint (on the plus side the paint on the aluminum hood matches that of the fiberglass better than most), and we cannot tell the condition of the chassis and its maintenance (or lack there of, looking at what we can see). Also, we cannot tell the condition of the Dayton knock-off wheels. USUALLY, these are not maintained well and they are non-stainless spokes, unlike the ones of today. I can tell you what new cost (or, having the originals rebuild--more than buying new). Again, there is nothing I see to suggest more than the barest, minimal maintenance of any part of the car.

Have I seen worse? You bet! Have I seen better; certainly. In my evaluation, this is one of the rougher $45K and up that I have seen, and as an aside it's value is compromised further because it has doors, pure and simple--making the asking price yet more questionable. I think a brutally honest OC Price Guide evaluation (as of earlier this year) would call it no more than a weak "3" with an evaluation of @ $30K. As it turns out there is what would seem a better example currently for sale in Florida--and it doesn't have doors!!!

Now, aren't you sorry you asked? Hehehehe!!!

[StudeMichael]

Not sorry at all Xcalibur. Most of what you describe could be easily remedied with an R2 or R3 engine transplant.

[Xcalibur]

Yes, StudeMichael... IF the engine-swap included a fairly complete restoration (or, at least a serious "freshening") of the rest of the car, as well, hehehe.

Btw, I was probably wrong about the water-pump on this one; on second look it seems it's just had the installed fan and spacer swapped for the original thermostatically controlled one.

I would certainly like to see an accurate "reproduction" of the original prototype NY show car, down to the larger than production tri-bar headlights and split windshield. Unfortunately, (inho) as production parts were decided upon the prototype was updated to include them, as well. I can see doing so from a marketing standpoint, but from an historical perspective we lose something.

I have added tri-bars to mine, but in the production light-buckets.

All the best.

[StudeMichael]

Here is a 1965 model. I would say this one is nice but over restored to the point of losing some of it's charisma.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Other-Makes-Excalibur-serie-one-Excalibur-SSK-Series-I-Roadster-Excalibur-previously-owned-by-Marvin-/221258549760?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item3384098a00&vxp=mtr