Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Under the Avanti

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

  • geojerry
    replied
    Great comments and history from all. Thanks.

    This will get done !!!!!
    That front will be dropped on the Av II with a new set of tires
    in the next few months.

    Jerry.

    PS - Happy Holidays to all. Stay warm and dry till spring thaw arrives. Oh, I washed both cars today. It was a cool 73 down here in Ft. Lauderdale today. We are in the midst of a cold wave ( 59 last night).

    Leave a comment:


  • Dick Steinkamp
    replied
    quote:Originally posted by MikeValent

    My point was that rake was not at all in style at the time Stude built the Avanti,
    For new cars in '63...especially sports cars or personal luxury cars, rake may not have been in, but LOW was. Check out '63 Corvettes, Riverias, T-Birds, etc. They were LOW and made to look even lower in advertisements. The Avanti, OTOH, was pretty much sedan height (logical since it was built on the Lark chassis). My guess is that Studebaker would have built it lower to be more competitive if they could have done it on the small budget they had to work with.

    In later years, the Avanti II got HIGHER. I really don't think this was because customers were looking for sporty cars that had more air under them . The look was not good then, and is not good now. I believe it was due to body, drivetrain and suspension limitations the manufacturer had to work with AND new federal regulations.

    In the 60's, us "kids" lowered our cars in front (and have from before then through today). Detroit eventually caught up to us [^].




    Dick Steinkamp
    Bellingham, WA

    Leave a comment:


  • MikeValent
    replied
    My point was that rake was not at all in style at the time Stude built the Avanti,nor when Altman built the car. Both built the car to sell. While a lot of people here might see it as desirable, new car buyers in the 60's definitely did not. I just offered this view as an OF who was actually a car-crazed young adult when Stude introduced the Avanti.

    MikeV
    Pompano Beach, FL
    83 Avanti 377I

    Leave a comment:


  • Gunslinger
    replied
    quote:Originally posted by MikeValent

    I bought a new '64 R-2 in fall of '63 and still remember that the rake was one of only two serious reservations I had about the purchase. The other was Studebaker's lousy chrome plating. My '83 has the same poorly chromed bumpers - who knows, maybe they were actually made in 1963? But at least my '83 sits level.

    MikeV
    Pompano Beach, FL
    83 Avanti 377I
    That may well be true about the bumpers...Studebaker planned on building something like 1000 Avanti's monthly, so their suppliers would have been contracted to supply parts at that rate. I'm sure there were lots of bumpers in inventory when Nate Altman purchased the entire parts supply. My '70 is almost entirely of leftover Studebaker parts. The a/c panel has the Studebaker "S" emblem with a hole drilled through it for the a/c switch.

    I would expect your bumpers to be leftover Studebaker stock like the suspension and so many other parts.




    Poet...Mystic...Soldier of Fortune. As always...self-absorbed, adversarial, cocky and in general a malcontent.

    Leave a comment:


  • 64Avanti
    replied
    I would be most people like the rake! I don't know too many who want to get rid of it on their 63-64 Avanti''s but do know a number of people who wouold like to have a rake on their later Avanti's.

    David L

    Leave a comment:


  • MikeValent
    replied
    Altman, who was a dealer, remember, did not like the rake. I suspect he considered it a sales negative because the new car buying public at that time considered a level stance and ride a sign of quality. A lower front stance usually meant that your front springs had become too weak - something I remember well from the 53 Studebaker V-8 hardtop I owned from 1956-62. Rake may be "cool" now, but back then it was an indication of poor design or engineering.

    I bought a new '64 R-2 in fall of '63 and still remember that the rake was one of only two serious reservations I had about the purchase. The other was Studebaker's lousy chrome plating. My '83 has the same poorly chromed bumpers - who knows, maybe they were actually made in 1963? But at least my '83 sits level.

    MikeV
    Pompano Beach, FL
    83 Avanti 377I

    Leave a comment:


  • Dick Steinkamp
    replied
    quote:Originally posted by Gunslinger

    That's true...Nate didn't much like the rake, but he was quoted as saying it was a moot point as the Chevy powerplant made it necessary. I've seen some claim the Chevy engine wasn't as tall as the Stude engine, so maybe it was clearances underneath that made it necessary to place the Chevy engine higher in the chassis...what the real truth is may never be known.

    In the middle of '74, MGB had to put on the ugly rubber bumpers and raise the car an inch or two to meet federal bumper standards (including a new height standard). I wonder if this is the same reason the Avanti II's got the nosebleed stance?





    Dick Steinkamp
    Bellingham, WA

    Leave a comment:


  • Gunslinger
    replied
    That's true...Nate didn't much like the rake, but he was quoted as saying it was a moot point as the Chevy powerplant made it necessary. I've seen some claim the Chevy engine wasn't as tall as the Stude engine, so maybe it was clearances underneath that made it necessary to place the Chevy engine higher in the chassis...what the real truth is may never be known.

    The fact remains the rake was eliminated and fillers were added to the front tire openings, though eventually the fiberglass panels were modified with the filler eliminated. I guess that was done after original leftover bodies and panels were used up and new orders from Molded Fiberglass were placed. It had to save labor time to not have to add and bond another fiberglass piece on each side if the vendor supplied the panels already done the way you want them.




    Poet...Mystic...Soldier of Fortune. As always...self-absorbed, adversarial, cocky and in general a malcontent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Starlight
    replied
    I think "retired" is correct about the Avanti 2's bodies being shimmed and the front fender openings filled in, if my memory is correct Nate Altman did not like the front end down rake look as much as the rest of us did

    Leave a comment:


  • studegary
    replied
    From your pictures, I am more concerned with getting the front end components properly lubricated. I see fresh grease on the Zerk fittings, but I do not see any coming out of the areas that would indicate that enough grease got through to do the job, like on the king pin thrust bearing/washer.

    Gary L.
    Wappinger, NY

    SDC member since 1968
    Studebaker enthusiast much longer

    Leave a comment:


  • Retired
    replied
    My "63 w/AC has the spring spacers in the pockets. Left them there when I installed new springs in '76.

    Just a thought but on the II's isn't the body shimmed up and the fender wheel openings altered with the fiber glass fillers? This is what (a) provides sufficient hood clearance for the Chevy power plant and (b) removes the downward front end sloap?

    Richard

    Leave a comment:


  • jd-stude
    replied
    Will lowering the front that much cause alot of bottoming out of the suspension and can the camber be adjusted properly after that much change? I always put function before looks

    Ken

    Leave a comment:


  • 64studeavanti
    replied
    I agree. the spacer is in the spring pocket under the spring. My 64 even had one. I believe that they are 3/8" or so.

    Leave a comment:


  • geojerry
    replied
    One more pic to ponder:

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas63R2
    replied
    Jerry, I think that the spacer is located inside the spring pocket of the lower control arm - not seen in your pictures.

    To safely remove the spacer from under the spring place the car in the air on jack stands under the frame, position a floor jack under the lower control arm, remove the bolts where the control arm attaches to the frame, lower the jack to relieve pressure on the spring. Note: you may be tempted to detach the lower control arm where it attaches to the wheel spindle - doing so is a mistake because you lose the mechanical advantage of relieving the spring pressure safely.

    Thomas

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X