Automotive Blasphemy

[Pat Dilling]

Interesting comments...

I like all Stude's..

Having said that..
My byline is:
"I respect 'Stock' Studebakers..... I just don't have the discipline needed to build them as badly as they did when they were new".

Well said Jeff!

[bezhawk]

Sorry, I'm going to have to say something about this. Just as you have the freedom to say it's blasphemy, I'm going to state it's not. It's freedom of self expression. Where your freedom ends is where it impacts MINE. To deliberately do that is what I am against. There has to be a balance or you will end up driving away all participants.
If you build something to push it down anothers throat, then that is the problem. It's lack of respect for others that causes ill will.

[DEEPNHOCK]

So you'd be OK with a guy who owns a drawing by Michelangelo adding mustaches in ink and pasting it to a phone pole? Really?

Missed my point by a mile...
I said that 'if' there is no LAW saying this could not be done, then, in our country, the person is free to do what he wants with property he owns.
I said that if someone did this they should expect ridicule and scorn, or compliment and praise....(Depending on the opinion of who is viewing).
I said that is is wrong to attack the person for expressing themselves, even if some others don't like it.
What happens here is that a person is getting attacked for doing what is actually their right to do it.
It isn't the Stude... That's just the 'thing'... It could be a watch, or a house, or whatever.
Once we start attacking the individual and stripping away the liberties we have...we all lose something.
People just get all wrapped up in the minutia of the product, in this case the Studebaker...
I find it bad form to see club members attacking club members because they think that their opinion is more valuable than others opinions.
That's all... It's bad for the hobby, with the emphasis on the word hobby.

To answer your question....
"If" the guy owned the Michelangelo, then it would be his right to do with it as he wants.
Destroying it would be stupid, but that (stupid) is just an opinion based on value, or artistic appreciation.
But those things are not rights.

[prescottstude]

Interesting comments...

I like all Stude's..

Having said that..
My byline is:
"I respect 'Stock' Studebakers..... I just don't have the discipline needed to build them as badly as they did when they were new".

too bad about your discipline, but as Clint Eastwood would say "a man has to know his limitations"...we certainly don't want anyone building anything "as badly as they did when they were new"

[hausdok]

I think it's time to dial down the dialog here.

There's nothing else to say. Yeah, taking the original engine out of a P.A. and putting in a Chevy engine was pretty radical; but it was that guy's right to do so - no matter how .....distasteful it seems to some members here. Those who stand here and heap scorn on folks that do that are also heaping scorn on members of this club, a club that has a modified class as stated above, who have modified their own cars. If you don't like the fact that someone else has modified their car from the original, that's your opinion and you have a right to your opinion, but you do not have a right....here......to heap scorn on other members here in the name of free speech, because there isn't any such thing on a private forum with rules about such things, for something that's considered by this club to be acceptable.

Those who can't accept that rule should probably not come here to this forum or should keep that opinion to themselves when they are posting here; because by pontificating about it you are essentially disrespecting a large segment of forum participants and that's going to nothing but rile that other segment up and they will respond in kind. In order to prevent you all from saying things in writing to each other that you'll probably regret later, we moderators will have to start pruning threads; which essentially means that after you spend half an hour slamming away at your keyboard to shout from the top of that shoebox about horrible a restomod is, or how unfair someone who shouts about how horrible a restomod is, your words are going to disappear and you'll have expended all that effort for naught.

[oldsalt]

Based on being in my mid-seventies and having been a car nut for far longer than half a century I developed the following opinion about old iron:

The idea that the only valid path [The High Road] is to 'restore' a collector car seems, to me, to be based on a silly premise. Think about it; every guy that wants to play car must develop a "vision" of the completed machine. A faulted vision [and often execution] often contains the seeds of the car's destruction or a finished car that is "awful". [Makes me glad that the builder was not in charge of the Sistine Chapel or the Wright Flyer]. But sometimes the vision produces something really valid. But, good or bad outcome, the "vision" is NOT BASED on blindingly adhering to the factory's vision was way back when the car was produced. Essentially that is what 'restoring' is all about.......the eschewing of all personal vision and using a, maybe safer, "canned" factory vision. I think there's some truth to my belief that many adopt the 'restore dogma', as the One and Only True Path, because they might be frightened of the responsibility of developing, and executing, a personal vision. Too scary for some folks.

[TXmark]

the thing I LIKE about SDC is that they welcome modified Studes, I am also a member of the AACA I respect there beliefs also.I have a '37 Buick that I would not ever think of ever doing anything other than original
My modified GT hawk is currently going under further mods. I'm finally fitting the early Chrysler hemi in it that I bought a few years back.
Studes have long been a favorite of the custom crowd.

I gag at some mods the guys have done but I do believe in " his car his money"

[garrilla]

I think it's time to dial down the dialog here.

There's nothing else to say. Yeah, taking the original engine out of a P.A. and putting in a Chevy engine was pretty radical; but it was that guy's right to do so - no matter how .....distasteful it seems to some members here. Those who stand here and heap scorn on folks that do that are also heaping scorn on members of this club, a club that has a modified class as stated above, who have modified their own cars. If you don't like the fact that someone else has modified their car from the original, that's your opinion and you have a right to your opinion, but you do not have a right....here......to heap scorn on other members here in the name of free speech, because there isn't any such thing on a private forum with rules about such things, for something that's considered by this club to be acceptable.

Those who can't accept that rule should probably not come here to this forum or should keep that opinion to themselves when they are posting here; because by pontificating about it you are essentially disrespecting a large segment of forum participants and that's going to nothing but rile that other segment up and they will respond in kind. In order to prevent you all from saying things in writing to each other that you'll probably regret later, we moderators will have to start pruning threads; which essentially means that after you spend half an hour slamming away at your keyboard to shout from the top of that shoebox about horrible a restomod is, or how unfair someone who shouts about how horrible a restomod is, your words are going to disappear and you'll have expended all that effort for naught.

Thank you Mike, your post is very much appreciated. Above all we are Studebaker fans and no mater what your tastes are respect should be shown to all members.

[Hallabutt]

Gentlemen,

Since I have owned Pierce Arrows for thirty eight years I guess that I should respond to this thread. Pierce Arrow was an American producer of the luxury cars which were so good that automotive experts consider them to be among the best car ever produced. I can't begin to go into the effort that went into each car that made it so special, but if anyone reading this considers himself a student of automotive history and he doesn't know the PA story, he owes it to himself to do some reading. Pierce Arrows were considered so special during the Edwardian period that they the overwhelming choice of US Presidents and potentates from around the world. Entertainers and business leaders also enjoyed being seen in a PA. The owners history became intertwined with the cars that he drove, or in which he was chauffeured. The upshot was that the car became part of history and developed a life of it's own. Recently original cars have found a place on the old car stage, to which I say it's about time!

I wasn't always so soppy when it came to altering cars. I always like a well done SR. In the early days it meant that someone had saved a piece of junk and made something out of it. It was usually was done to a Ford, Chevrolet or Plymouth, of which there was a seemingly unending supply. Then about twenty five years ago things began to change. The Baby Boomers were coming of age and wanted the things that they had dreamed about when they were young. They seemed to lack the interest in history and the patience for the traditional way of building a SR from the ground up. Lack of patience, and common sense took the form of finding the best original or restored car that they could find, because it usually took less time to finish. They were often less then honest with the owner who had often spent a lifetime caring for or restoring the car. The new generation of SR wanted something other then a Ford. All the rules of rodding seemed to go out the window. Unrepentant asses would brag about who they screwed and what they had destroyed just to get a rise out of the purest. The divide between the SR and the purest is not new, and is not one sided. It developed because one side chose to change the rules and then thumb there collective nose at the other part of the hobby.

There are enough PA engines around that there no doubt an extra, near correct, engine for every car that exists. Having said that, in the pre Studebaker days virtually all parts that went on a certain chassis were stamped with the same number for that car. So finding a numbers matching car takes on a whole new meaning.

It was Seagrave not American Lafrance that used the Pierce designed V12. By the way it was Studebaker engineer Karl Wise, who was part of chief engineer Barney Roos' engine design team, who is given credit for that engine's design.

Ok gentlemen take your shots. I'm old and don't move very fast any more.-Bill

[clonelark]

It wasn't only Pierce Arrow that got an engine swap, how about this Auburn with a Viper engine, like said above there are no laws.

[qsanford]

Gentlemen,

Since I have owned Pierce Arrows for thirty eight years I guess that I should respond to this thread. Pierce Arrow was an American producer of the luxury cars which were so good that automotive experts consider them to be among the best car ever produced. I can't begin to go into the effort that went into each car that made it so special, but if anyone reading this considers himself a student of automotive history and he doesn't know the PA story, he owes it to himself to do some reading. Pierce Arrows were considered so special during the Edwardian period that they the overwhelming choice of US Presidents and potentates from around the world. Entertainers and business leaders also enjoyed being seen in a PA. The owners history became intertwined with the cars that he drove, or in which he was chauffeured. The upshot was that the car became part of history and developed a life of it's own. Recently original cars have found a place on the old car stage, to which I say it's about time!

I wasn't always so soppy when it came to altering cars. I always like a well done SR. In the early days it meant that someone had saved a piece of junk and made something out of it. It was usually was done to a Ford, Chevrolet or Plymouth, of which there was a seemingly unending supply. Then about twenty five years ago things began to change. Then Baby Boomers were coming of age and wanted the things that they had dreamed about when they were young. They seemed to lack the interest in history and the patience for the traditional way of building a SR from the ground up. Lack of patience, and common sense took the form of finding the best original or restored car that they could find, because it usually took less time to finish. They were often less then honest with the owner who had often spent a lifetime caring for or restoring the car. The new generation of SR wanted something other then a Ford. All the rules of rodding seemed to go out the window. Unrepentant asses would brag about who they screwed and what they had destroyed just to get a rise out of the purest. The divide between the SR and the purest is not new, and is not one sided. It developed because one side chose to change the rules and then thumb there collective nose at the other part of the hobby.

There are enough PA engines around that there no doubt an extra, near correct, engine for every car that exists. Having said that, in the pre Studebaker days virtually all parts that went on a certain chassis were stamped with the same number for that car. So finding a numbers matching car takes on a whole new meaning.

It was Seagrave not American Lafrance that used the Pierce designed V12. By the way it was Studebaker engineer Karl Wise, who was part of chief engineer Barney Roos' engine design team, who is given credit for that engine's design.

Ok gentlemen take your shots. I'm old and don't move very fast any more.-Bill

This sums up why many of the "hoarders" won't sell the car that is just sitting there...

[Chucks Stude]

As far as the Beech 18 with the tricycle landing gear, it made the plane into a pig by shifting the CG way forward. Sticking the turbines on it may have helped a bit. Kinda like throwing good money after bad.

[prescottstude]

thank you Sir, for your excellent response....maybe those who speak of manners can take your fine words to heart...

[Pat Dilling]

As one who has an extensively modified '53 Starlight I appreciate being accepted and included in the SDC and in our local chapter in particular. I am a Studebaker Driver after all. I have had a few folks tell me I have ruined a beautiful car, but have had far more compliments. I am OK with those that disagree with my vision, I only ask that they do so in a manner that is not condemnation or suggestion that my car and I should be ostracized. I have had the pleasure of attending several international and zone meets in recent years and have noticed that there is no shortage of original cars, generally far outnumbering the ones that are modified. Bottom line is we all love our Studebakers, I hope we can be inclusive rather than exclusive.

[t walgamuth]

It wasn't only Pierce Arrow that got an engine swap, how about this Auburn with a Viper engine, like said above there are no laws.

In this case, I'd have to ask why not start with a kit car instead of an original one?