AHC: Studebaker Survives the 1960s

[Delta Force]

Studebaker faced some major challenges in the 1950s and 1960s, but still managed to produce the influential Lark and Avanti before becoming bankrupt. Would it have been possible for Studebaker to have survived the 1960s, or at least survive as a brand under one of the Big Three companies?

 

[Dilvish]

The guys who took over the Avanti name and production might have acquired the Studebaker name as well.

I remember reading a few years ago that some company was proposing a new SUV under the Studebaker name. That plan fell through after the financial crisis.

 

[Driftless]

What about having one of the Japanese car companies pick up the line? Studebaker had some forward thinking designs, and a reasonably good rep when they went under. Perhaps it could have been the first Japanese owned, US made set of cars. Mix & match of Japanese & American engines & parts?

Another spin on that idea, the Studebaker 6x6 trucks were a workhorse during WW2 for the US & USSR. How about either updating them, or an SUV version late 60's, early 70's when that genre started to take off?

 

[Kevin Renner]

IIRC Studebaker remained in business as a parts supplier

 

[E-Man]

Our family wagon during the 60's was actually a Studebaker, although I do not recall the exact model, I am guessing that it must have been a "Scotsman" from around 1958. It had an ultracool rootbeer paint job and some very cool lines (still have vivid recollection). Our family of five drove that thing all over the US (think it had well over 200K miles on it when we sold it in early 70's) - it was ever dependable. My pop still says that it was the best vehicle he ever owned and wishes he would have held on to the old girl.

 

[Driftless]

When I was a kid in the 1960's, one of my neighbors was a long time Studebaker dealership mechanic. When the Studebaker line went under, he immediately picked up a job with a different dealership, but I remember him being in a deep funk for a long time about the fate of Studebaker. Folks who were "Studebaker people" were extremely loyal, but not enough of them, I guess.

 

[1940LaSalle]

By the time Studebaker was really having trouble, so was Kaiser-Jeep (i.e., what was left of Kaiser, which had picked up Jeep from Willys in the '50s). So...how about Studebaker acquiring Jeep in, say, 1963? The combination of the Studebaker name plus the Jeep cachet might well have been enough to keep the wolves from the door for a handful of years until, say, the 1970s, by which time AMC might well have merged with Studebaker. In turn, that could have led to a nostalgia-fueled revival of the Nash and Hudson nameplates under the AMC banner. That company would have four divisions: Hudson, Nash, Studebaker, and Jeep (with the latter handling all truck manufacturing). Now you have a solid middle-to-upper-middle income-based company.

 

[Mark E.]

By the time Studebaker was really having trouble, so was Kaiser-Jeep (i.e., what was left of Kaiser, which had picked up Jeep from Willys in the '50s). So...how about Studebaker acquiring Jeep in, say, 1963? The combination of the Studebaker name plus the Jeep cachet might well have been enough to keep the wolves from the door for a handful of years until, say, the 1970s, by which time AMC might well have merged with Studebaker. In turn, that could have led to a nostalgia-fueled revival of the Nash and Hudson nameplates under the AMC banner. That company would have four divisions: Hudson, Nash, Studebaker, and Jeep (with the latter handling all truck manufacturing). Now you have a solid middle-to-upper-middle income-based company.

Add Packard in the late fifties and you have a fourth full-line auto manufacturer.

 

[Driftless]

IF they could have stretched out to the first Energy Crisis - 1973ish; would that have helped Studebaker vs other US manufacturers; or just finished them off?

 

[Delta Force]

IF they could have stretched out to the first Energy Crisis - 1973ish; would that have helped Studebaker vs other US manufacturers; or just finished them off?

By the end Studebaker had a mix of small and large vehicles. Being a developer of smaller vehicles could help out during an energy crisis.

Also, Studebaker was the American importer of Mercedes-Benz, Auto Union, and DKW designs. Perhaps it could purchase engines and drivetrains from them as well, at least until it can afford to develop new ones?

 

[Driftless]

IF they could have stretched out to the first Energy Crisis - 1973ish; would that have helped Studebaker vs other US manufacturers; or just finished them off?

By the end Studebaker had a mix of small and large vehicles. Being a developer of smaller vehicles could help out during an energy crisis.

Also, Studebaker was the American importer of Mercedes-Benz, Auto Union, and DKW designs. Perhaps it could purchase engines and drivetrains from them as well, at least until it can afford to develop new ones?

That's kind of what I was wondering. The Lark and certainly the Avanti offered potential for growth in that changing environment. The Lark, more of a conventional American style compact, with decent performance for it's category. The Avanti was sophisticated already, and could have been adapted to more roles, with some technological support.

 

[Delta Force]

Perhaps the company lineup could be like this?

American Motor Company (for lack of a better name)
-- Packard: Luxury vehicles. Flagship model is the Excellence.
-- Studebaker: High end and performance division. The Ambassador is the flagship sedan for the line. The flagship performance model is the Avanti, which competes with the Chevrolet Corvette.
-- Rambler: A performance oriented division that focuses on pony cars and other vehicles that would appeal to young people. The flagship model is the Rebel, which competes with the Chevrolet Camaro, Ford Mustang, etc.
-- Hudson: The mid-tier division. Flagship model is the Hornet.
-- Nash: Produces affordable entry level vehicles. Flagship model is the Lark.
-- Jeep: Military sales, trucks, simple cars and off-road vehicles, and exports. Flagship civilian car model is the Civilian Jeep.

According to Wikipedia, the combined company would have had sales of 5,276,954 in the 1950s, around 9.11% of the American automobile market.

 

[DD951]

What about having one of the Japanese car companies pick up the line? Studebaker had some forward thinking designs, and a reasonably good rep when they went under. Perhaps it could have been the first Japanese owned, US made set of cars. Mix & match of Japanese & American engines & parts?

Another spin on that idea, the Studebaker 6x6 trucks were a workhorse during WW2 for the US & USSR. How about either updating them, or an SUV version late 60's, early 70's when that genre started to take off?

They did try that as a last-ditch effort to save the company in the 1964-66 timeframe, talking with both Nissan & Toyota to become their US partner & distributor, but disagreements between the CEO & the board caused Studebaker to vacillate between the two Japanese companies, and the resulting indecision & appearance of disorder scared both of them off.

 

[Riain]

I work with a Studebaker nut, and he tells me that the V8 was not a proper thin-wall casting like the SB Chev, its more along the lines of the Ford Y block in design. Perhaps if Studebaker had built a proper thin-wall V8 engine the excellence of the engine would be something they could ride on like the other slightly later small blocks.

 

[Delta Force]

Since this is essentially a large AMC, how would the company's internal engine options fare against the options from the Big Three and foreign firms?

Internally Developed Engines
-- I-4: Willys Hurricane
-- I-6: Jeep Tornado, Modern I-6
-- V-8: Nash/Hudson/Rambler V-8, Second Generation V-8

If the Studebaker Avanti numbers are scalable, it seems they could have achieved some very impressive performance. Here is some information on engine performance from this website this website. Keep in mind it is only with a 289 cubic engine V-8.

Powering the Avanti was a modified version of Studebaker's dated but sturdy 289-cubic-inch V-8. This "Jet Thrust" engine developed 240 horsepower in standard "R1" form, with such items as a 3/4-race high-lift camshaft, dual-breaker distributor, four-barrel carburetor and dual exhausts. It developed 290 horsepower in supercharged "R2" form.

There also were a few supercharged "R3" V-8s with 335 horsepower and an experimental non-supercharged "R4" 280-horsepower V-8 with dual four-barrel carburetors. Then there was an amazing twin-supercharged, fuel-injected "R5" V-8 with magneto ignition. It produced an astounding 575 horsepower.

To Studebaker's delight, the public was crazy about the Avanti, which drew many to Studebaker showrooms. It was upscale and nicely equipped. The 1963 and 1964 models each had a $4,445 base price, when a less practical Chevrolet Corvette Sting Ray two-seat coupe cost $4,252.

But quality problems arose because Egbert rushed the car into production, knowing time was running out for Studebaker. It didn't help that production was delayed for months because Molded Fiberglass Co., which also built Corvette fiberglass body parts, botched Avanti bodies--forcing Studebaker to set up its own fiberglass production.

Also, I managed to find some documents on the price of the R3 and R4 engines here. According to this, in 1964 a complete R3 engine could be purchased for $1860 ($1,660 for the engine plus $200 for the supercharger), and a complete R4 cost $1,460. This site puts the total price for a Studebaker Avanti with the R3 performance package was $5,980.

Now, imagine Studebaker debuting the Avanti or another challenger to the Corvette in 1962 with a larger engine such as the 327 cubic engine Hudson/Nash/Rambler V-8. In 1966 it could move on to the Second Generation V-8, or perhaps even debut with it if the company is in a better financial situation. I don't know how much performance Studebaker lost by using the older V-8 design, but it certainly seems it could have done some very interesting things with a more modern design given what it did with the older one.

Of course performance isn't everything for a large company, and fortunately it would have the most economical gasoline engine on the market in 1962 in the form of the I-6 Jeep Tornado. It might not matter much at the time, but it would help the company out if/when any energy crises arrived.

 

[Delta Force]

Also, might the company be able to keep the I-6 engine popular in the American market? It's favored in some applications due to its balance and smoothness, such as European luxury cars, but most American companies simply go with V-6 engines derived from their V-8s. Also, the I-6 engine requires a longer engine bay. Still, it could be a feature that makes them stand out in the marketplace, which is one reason why BMW uses the configuration.

 

[Delta Force]

A 327 cubic inch R5 would have had around 650 horsepower if the performance scaled. It might actually go up due to the more modern design, Studebaker was using a less advanced V-8 design. To put that in perspective, the most powerful muscle car of the 1960s was the Ford Galaxie 427 SOHC, which achieved 660 horsepower with a 427 cubic inch engine.

I don't know how much weight and size the superchargers added to the engine, but it seems that Studebaker would have benefited from using presumably lighter and smaller designs. More modern (by 1960s standards) Studebaker small block V-8s could have become legendary based on what they were able to accomplish with an older design.

 

[Delta Force]

I have an engine lineup idea now. I know performance I-6 engines are a strange idea, but I think it's an interesting idea. The Avanti was able to compete with the Corvette using only a 289 cubic inch V-8, so a 232 cubic inch I-6 could be an option for people to consider on middle tier vehicles.

I was thinking that the company could still have some economy of scale by having the I-4 simply be a derivative of the I-6. That would give it the big-block V-8, small-block V-8, and the I-6/I-4 engine families.

427 cubic inch V-8
-- R0 (two barrel carburetor): 325 horsepower
-- R1 (four barrel carburetor): 355 horsepower
-- R2 (four barrel carburetor, supercharged): 430 horsepower
-- R3 (dual-quad carburetor): 400 horsepower
-- R4 (dual-quad carburetor, supercharged): 495 horsepower
-- R5 (fuel injected): 490 horsepower
-- R6 (fuel injected, supercharged): 605 horsepower
-- R7 (fuel injected, double supercharged): 850 horsepower

327 cubic inch V-8
-- R0 (two barrel carburetor): 250 horsepower
-- R1 (four barrel carburetor): 270 horsepower
-- R2 (four barrel carburetor, supercharged): 330 horsepower
-- R3 (dual-quad carburetor): 320 horsepower
-- R4 (dual-quad carburetor, supercharged): 380 horsepower
-- R5 (fuel injected): 375 horsepower
-- R6 (fuel injected, supercharged): 465 horsepower
-- R7 (fuel injected, double supercharged): 650 horsepower

232 cubic inch I-6
-- R0 (two barrel carburetor): 175 horsepower
-- R1 (four barrel carburetor): 195 horsepower
-- R2 (four barrel carburetor, supercharged): 235 horsepower
-- R3 (dual-quad carburetor): 225 horsepower
-- R4 (dual-quad carburetor, supercharged): 270 horsepower
-- R5 (fuel injected): 265 horsepower
-- R6 (fuel injected, supercharged): 330 horsepower
-- R7 (fuel injected, double supercharged): 460 horsepower

161 cubic inch I-4
-- R0 (two barrel carburetor): 125 horsepower
-- R1 (four barrel carburetor): 135 horsepower

 

[Driftless]

If you can leg Studebaker into the post-1973 fuel crisis; a fuel-efficient engine with some power would sell. The biggest knock on the efficient engines back then (when they were struggling to meet early emission requirements) was that they were dogs. You chose efficiency or performance, there was no common ground, at least for the average person.

 

[Delta Force]

If you can leg Studebaker into the post-1973 fuel crisis; a fuel-efficient engine with some power would sell. The biggest knock on the efficient engines back then (when they were struggling to meet early emission requirements) was that they were dogs. You chose efficiency or performance, there was no common ground, at least for the average person.

The AMC Modern I-6 was rather efficient for the era. Perhaps it and the I-4 could be designed more for economical operation and reliability, instead of the I-6 being used as a budget performance engine. If someone wanted performance they would probably purchase a V-8 of some kind.

There could be a different focus for the engine families, the V-8 designs prioritizing power and the I-6 and I-4 prioritizing economical operation.