balthazar

I like your ATS engine tier proposals, Cmicasa. However, I know you're going to say 'if you can't afford it buy a Cruze', but $1900 for 15 HP is ridiculous. You can't even perceive 15 HP behind the wheel.

The '58 Packard Hawk is all the more disappointing when a mere 2 years earlier they were building this :

The pistons for the above monster :

TWENTY-EIGHT point FIVE liter FOUR-CYLINDER. The land speed attempt custom Fiat; the "Beast of Turin", 1911.

Footnote: In '55, Stude re-introduced the 'President' series, topping the Champion & Commander series. Within that was the top-line President Speedster, which in addition to an engine-turned instrument panel & almost every optional feature as standard, it got some semi-garish 2-tone combos and a LOT of extra chrome, including the so-called 'butter knife' side trim. Not bad from the side but up front many lamented the dip in the plating pool: 2,215 were built, and they have a bit of a following among collectors today.

^ Agreed, With the lineage here, Studebaker executed an inverse stylistic Bell Curve: the '53-55s were sweet, so was the 62-64 GTs, it was the in-between years of '56-61 were not so appealing. Ironically, my son sent me a pic of a '59 Sky Hawk for sale he saw today. - - - - - I looked at a '57 Golden Hawk for sale a few years ago. It was interesting due to the unique touches, but still not to up to the level of the Big 3 specials.

But the flip is; don't bother to do any special models; maybe sales will increase via willpower. This isn't a unique body or something, it's just a package on an existing model. Widen your appeal, get tongues to wag. It makes perfect sense.

The 'last model year before shutting down for WW2' would've been the rare and somewhat… erratic '42 Olds. Olds shut down their line Feb 5. 1942 to convert to wartime contracts.

Correct: all 'Hawks' were 2-doors, from '56 thru the GTs of '64. But other Studebakers of the era certainly bore stylistic resemblance to the Hawks, for example; this '56 President : But these are not the same series nor the same body shells.

Here's one :

ChryCo used to be VERY industrious / busy (below from 1961) ::

• Ran about 12 gallons of water thru both cooling systems, flushing rust & sediment out plus using a long stiff bristled cone brush. Water finally ran out consistently clear. • Sent water pumps to dedicated flathead rebuilder, he rebuilds your pumps. Since mine has the uncommon dual pulleys, I think I'd rather go that route that chance repros are exactly the same. Pumps should be there tomm, turnaround is supposed to be 1 week.

Off to work, but don't forget to fuel your Gas Skates!

Let's take a look at the now-classic GT Hawk, Studebaker's 'personal luxury' coupe : Naturally, we have to backtrack before we can backtrack. Hang on... - - - - - The GT Hawk traces it's roots to the full-classic '53 Studebaker coupe, designed under the leadership of famed industrial designer (and previous Studebaker designer) Raymond Loewy. The coupe was available in both Stude's series, the Champion and the Commander, in 3 different trim levels and was also available in a 2-dr sedan (with B-Pillar) and the Starliner 2-dr hardtop. The 2-door '53 Stude was widely acclaimed at introduction, and sold extremely well : ~ 1953 ~ 4-drs : 74,073 2-drs : 95,526 The year prior, the much-less-sleek '52 2-dr Stude sold 29K units. For contrast, Chevy the same year (minus Corvette, converts & wagons) : 4-drs : 632,988 2-drs : 628,873 - - - - - So, Studebaker, with no where near the budgets of the Big 3, had this hit on it's hands. The Champion had an I-6, the Commander had a small 232 CI V8. 1954 and 1955 (with the addition of the chrome-laden President trim model) passes, and Stude readies a restyle. 1956 sees the introduction of the renamed and expanded Hawk line, including the Flight Hawk (in the base Champion series), the Power Hawk (Commander Series), the Sky Hawk (President Series) and the stand-alone Golden Hawk. At this point Studebaker was paired with Packard, and got the Packard 352 V8, supercharged, for the Golden Hawk, up from the '53's 120 HP to 275 HP. Total Hawk sales for '56 was 19,165. Here's the bulk of the Hawk's restyle versus the '53-55 body; basically a new front grille/hood, an a bunch of flashy 2-tone paint jobs. The Golden Hawk also gained (fiberglass) fins out back. 1956 Golden Hawk : 1957 comes, and all Hawks gain rear fins. Studebaker took a hard hit with the 1958 recession, but resilient as the Corporation traditionally was, it bounced back with another hit, the '59 Lark. Perhaps they were more focused on the Lark, because the Hawk line soldiered on with less attention; loosing the top-shelf Golden Hawk and it's supercharger, not to mention all 2-tone paint jobs, in 1959. Though there were naturally engineering & trim changes, 1960 and 1961 were basically 'Hawk on Hold' years. By 1961, Hawk sales were down to 3,929. In fact, if you happen to own a '61 Hawk 6, you have 1 of 266 units. - - - - - Finally, in 1962, the (again-reskinned '53) Brooks Stevens designed Gran Turismo Hawk debuted. Once again it garnered industry attention, with it's formal roofline and sharper body lines, sans fins now. GT Hawk was right in the same vein (tho a year earlier) as the minimal trim/ formal roofline '63 Pontiac Grand Prix. The model was re-simplified into a 6-cylinder (only sold outside the U.S.) and a V8, and sales climbed to 9,335. It was not low-priced model, sticking for $3095 ('62 Grand Prix was $3490). It also featured a redesigned interior, with full gauges, wood & aluminum trim, and the new craze; bucket seats with a floor shift. It was a beauty, and fell right into the meat of Studebaker's performance push, introduced and driven by the upcoming '63 Avanti. 1963 saw the famous 'R' engined Studebakers appear; in '63 there was the R-1 289 V8 with 240 HP, the R-2 supercharged 289 with 289 HP. 1964 saw the addition of the supercharged R-3 305 V8, with 335 HP, and the dual quad carbureted 305 rated at 280 HP. According to this online ad, Studebaker assembled (70) R-2 'Super Hawks' in '64. This gorgeous example sold for $55K : - - - - - Some may ask, was the Hawk series 'supposed to save' Studebaker? Well, in this writer's opinion, that's an invalid question. In a multi-car, corporate catalog, it's tough to have a perfect scenario where all other lines fail and 1 shining star comes forth to 'save the day'. Studebaker, the only successful carriage maker to transition to automobile production, had a good long run (1852-1966), but like all good things, came to an end. It's easy to dub the story 'they went out with a bang', what with the Avanti, the GT Hawk, and the wholly competent Lark, but it wasn't quite enough. Stude's last 2 years were relegated to their Canadian plant, and after '64, all previous models and any semblance of performance was dropped.

Back on point, what sort of corporate board would approve a model for production to compete with a vehicle that sold 106 units last month in the entire U.S.??

Always amusing to note the same degree of engineering in a Wrangler -based in the 1940s- as a mercedes G -based in the 1970s… STILL.

Mercedes Benz; Germany's Toyota. But good to at least see a retro-return to their innovation: heavy plastic body cladding.

But initially, cars never replaced horses- they were discretionary toys or farm vehicles for the most part. They weren't depended on, people very seldom did long distances, therefore range anxiety was never a wide-spread concern. Tangential factoids : Ford Model T had a range of 200-250 miles. And a Packard made the 1st cross-country trip, in 1903. EVs - in general- have yet to shake the range anxiety reputation (Tesla, perhaps, excluded).

An interesting -if circular- marketing ploy.

Time, of course, will tell. IMO, the dawn of the industry is an even worse example to compare to. FAR too different, horses & automobiles, than a gas vs. electric (otherwise functionally identical) automobile. The tech jump with EVs isn't remotely close to the former. Of course, at the dawn; electrics (and steam) were initially more popular than gas.

The fact that the initial Mustang was gas powered is NOT it's 'new market' factor. Propellant is irrelevant to the 'new market' bar being set in this reference. And I do "see it" (see end the end of post #92), but again; I'm not questioning 'if', only 'how quickly'. I think my end of the discussion here has been very much on point.

You obviously skimmed over my post above RE the 'new market' Mustang.No I didn't and I maintain my stance. Rare exceptions to this rule does not change that fact. To compare a Gas powered Mustang (you know, that fuel that had already been in use for 70 years or so) to a completely new tech EV is very shortsighted. Remember, cars started out at one percent in an age of horse and buggy with many of the same concerns being expressed here over EV cars. It's not hard to see why your "1%" remark doesn't hold a whole lot of water here, as a result. Sure the Mustang (which I point out was not brought up by me here) was gas-powered, but it very much was a "new market" vehicle (and a relatively frivolous one at that; a sporty, small fun car). It blew up the marketshare pie. Again just to put it in perspective: Mustang, full model year #1 : 6.3% of the market in the U.S. EVs plus hybrids, 15-some years after intro, every model totaled together : 6.6% of the market. I'm just not seeing the 'mass acceptance' picture as painted by many / some journalists. To date, it's a terrible thin slice of pie. That MAY certainly change, the future is unwritten, but it takes time to turn an ocean liner around. I still am of the opinion that 10 years isn't remotely close to the time required to clear 50% of the market.

Well, I just threw that out there, I did not check the numbers because the point wasn't convertibles. Also, a convert is a whole 'nuther bag of walnuts (some don't want, some have security issues, longevity issues, pricing issues, etc). But WRT EVs, altho the difference isn't that tangible (vs. a folding fabric roof & cramped rear seat), there still are very real considerations for a LOT of consumers (range, cost, reliability… range, etc) So much so that these are commonly stated, and while a convertible's attributes are well known (see above), there is a significant unknown component to EVs for many people (can I charge it @ work, do I need special elec upgrades in my home, what are the associated costs, etc). THAT'S where "convincing" people comes into the picture. Anyone can pretty much answer the question 'is a convertible for me' after a few minutes of reflection. With EVs, outside input is often necessary. It's obvious that EVs are up & coming, and are going to spread. No argument. How fast and how widely is open to wild conjecture at this point, and little else.