Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Look at this 53 Champion...

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

  • Engine: Look at this 53 Champion...

    Particularly the engine..

    https://vmp.ebay.com/ebay/viewAllPho...x?smid=6682477

    Reverse rotation Paxton? and what model?
    64 GT Hawk (K7)
    1970 Avanti (R3)

  • #2
    It looks like a nice body/exterior.
    There appears to be quite a bit of "sorting out" left to do. It appears that the dual carbs are standard items that have been pressurized. I do not understand the operation of the S/C. It looks like they did not figure out where to attach the shoulder belts. I do not see how they allowed for any upward motion of the rear suspension the way that the tailpipes are routed. "Unusual" location of the radio antenna. I wonder why the Serial Number was not used for the VIN. The hood is missing the rear cross rod. It is probably a 170 engine, not a "230".
    Just a few comments from a quick look.
    I would like to have the car and install a Studebaker 289 in it, but not for $30K.

    EDIT: The seller has 383 vehicles for sale, including two other Studebakers, and also has zero feedback. That zero is made up of one positive and one negative feedback.
    Last edited by studegary; 12-25-2017, 07:03 PM.
    Gary L.
    Wappinger, NY

    SDC member since 1968
    Studebaker enthusiast much longer

    Comment


    • #3
      I really like the outward looks,think it's a real eye catcher.
      Joseph R. Zeiger

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 63t-cab View Post
        I really like the outward looks,think it's a real eye catcher.
        To me, I agree...a REAL EYE CATCHER!...But, I'm also suspecting that's about it. Possibly, more like a Garage/Trailer/Driveway/Parking lot Queen! All that effort, hours & hours, restoring, cobbling, innovating, for little more than a few hours of "sight gag," enjoyment. Only to realize that any beater Mazda Miata (Probably could be bought for less than the paint prep on this Studebaker) would out perform, and outrun this pretty yard art. Signs are, that this thing is already keeping the undercarriage rust proofed with a film of oil (look at the front underside pic of gas tank). Really...it is pretty, but if it was such a great re-creation, I doubt it would have found its way (so soon) to a "Flipper's" sale barn.

        By comparison, anyone willing to risk a substantial amount of "disposable income" for an intelligent chance of "VALUE"...would quickly whip out your wallet and snap up the, previously discussed, Top Notch Commander in this thread!

        http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...rl-is-for-sale
        John Clary
        Greer, SC

        SDC member since 1975

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by jclary View Post
          To me, I agree...a REAL EYE CATCHER!...But, I'm also suspecting that's about it. Possibly, more like a Garage/Trailer/Driveway/Parking lot Queen! All that effort, hours & hours, restoring, cobbling, innovating, for little more than a few hours of "sight gag," enjoyment. Only to realize that any beater Mazda Miata (Probably could be bought for less than the paint prep on this Studebaker) would out perform, and outrun this pretty yard art. Signs are, that this thing is already keeping the undercarriage rust proofed with a film of oil (look at the front underside pic of gas tank). Really...it is pretty, but if it was such a great re-creation, I doubt it would have found its way (so soon) to a "Flipper's" sale barn.

          By comparison, anyone willing to risk a substantial amount of "disposable income" for an intelligent chance of "VALUE"...would quickly whip out your wallet and snap up the, previously discussed, Top Notch Commander in this thread!

          http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...rl-is-for-sale
          If you utilized the implied horsepower, either the transmission or the differential will fail.

          As far as the referenced car for sale - two differences to me in considering it - The major one is that it is not a Starliner and the minor one is that it is a 1954.
          Gary L.
          Wappinger, NY

          SDC member since 1968
          Studebaker enthusiast much longer

          Comment


          • #6
            Gary, it sure looks like a '53 Starliner to me. What makes you think not?
            Howard - Los Angeles chapter SDC
            '53 Commander Starliner (Finally running and driving, but still in process)
            '56 Golden Hawk (3 speed/overdrive, Power steering - Running, but not yet driving)
            '62 GT Hawk (4 speed, A/C, Power steering - running and DRIVING!)

            Comment


            • #7
              I remember seeing that car a few years back at the Gilmore Museum fall car show. Hard to forget a supercharged flat head six. I think I added a shot of it back then on the forum.

              Nice car as I recall.

              Bob

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by brngarage View Post
                Gary, it sure looks like a '53 Starliner to me. What makes you think not?
                I was referring to the 1954 Starlight in the post that I referenced, not the 1953 Starliner that is the subject of this topic/thread.
                Gary L.
                Wappinger, NY

                SDC member since 1968
                Studebaker enthusiast much longer

                Comment


                • #9
                  Looks like a nice car but why would someone go to all this work and then destroy the door trim panels with a bunch of screw's? This I guess is my thing just like Bob Palma's Battery hold down.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by studegary View Post
                    It looks like a nice body/exterior.
                    Can't pick it apart as a restoration, it being a custom. In Studebaker judging, customs are judged only on the quality and thought put in to the build. So I won't comment on the antenna in the right rear quarter but, assuming the body is straight and solid, for all the other work it has seen I would be very disappointed in the quality of the paint job; if you look close at just that.

                    Originally posted by swvalcon View Post
                    Looks like a nice car but why would someone go to all this work and then destroy the door trim panels with a bunch of screw's?
                    Those are easily replaced; besides, it's a customized car.
                    "All attempts to 'rise above the issue' are simply an excuse to avoid it profitably." --Dick Gregory

                    Brad Johnson, SDC since 1975, ASC since 1990
                    Pine Grove Mills, Pa.
                    '33 Rockne 10,
                    '51 Commander Starlight,
                    '53 Commander Starlight "Désirée",
                    '56 Sky Hawk

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rockne10 View Post
                      Can't pick it apart as a restoration, it being a custom. In Studebaker judging, customs are judged only on the quality and thought put in to the build. So I won't comment on the antenna in the right rear quarter but, assuming the body is straight and solid, for all the other work it has seen I would be very disappointed in the quality of the paint job; if you look close at just that.

                      Those are easily replaced; besides, it's a customized car.
                      I agree with you Brad. As I think I attempted to convey earlier, it is an interesting custom, but some of the "shortcuts" taken look like they were more on "Hey, this will do..." rather than a well thought out plan. For example, those late model front seats, look OK, but convenient with no extra effort to "blend" them in with the rest of the interior. To me, none of the alterations are "unforgivable," but for the kind of money being asked...it really makes one question where the "hidden" shortcuts are?

                      As for the difference in body styles regarding the '54 I supplied the link to, (post #4)...my "value" per dollar favors the "54. For this discussion, the difference in one being a hardtop, and the other a post coupe, is a non issue for me.
                      John Clary
                      Greer, SC

                      SDC member since 1975

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I am with you on that Steve, even worse than all those screws, is the Cheap, Plain, Door Panel trim.

                        It has no "Style", just like that Baby Blue Wheel on BLACK column and all that expensive "Clutter" under the Dash.
                        Last edited by StudeRich; 12-26-2017, 09:54 AM.
                        StudeRich
                        Second Generation Stude Driver,
                        Proud '54 Starliner Owner

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by StudeRich View Post
                          I am with you on that Steve, even worse than all those screws, is the Cheap, Plain, Door Panel trim.

                          It has no "Style", just like that Baby Blue Wheel on BLACK column and all that expensive "Clutter" under the Dash.
                          Those are my thought exactly. The first thing I noticed was the plain door panels and screws. They just looked so cheap compared to the fine body style. The next thing I noticed is the buckets didn't blend in well, then the dash was the final blow. I'd much prefer an original.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I wouldn't have done it that way. Echo the comments on the door panels. Making them two-tone would have been so easy. And adding a supercharger to dual carbs? Why? Dual carbs help it breathe better, naturally aspirated. Hang a blower on it, and one big carb would be a lot easier to manage. And the "230" sticker? Just plain tacky, there.
                            Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The serial number plate, G1222272 looks original if slightly the worse for wear. What's with the weird VIN 1032824? That would scare me off as much as any mechanical or appearance problems.
                              Bill Jarvis

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X