(EXPANDED FROM 12/1/2019)
This may not be a very popular perspective, but I would suggest that the so-called Loewy coupes were at their best in 1955. Although the styling wasn’t nearly as clean as the 1953-54 models, at least some of the production bugs had been worked out and 1955 brought a new dashboard that was both more functional and futuristic. In addition, if Studebaker was required by the times to add chrome and multi-colored paint, I would much rather take a top-end 1955 hardtop over the equivalent 1956 model.
‘Butter-knife’ trim was better than weird zig-zag
As a case in point, the “butter knife” side trim on the featured 1955 President hardtop was a decent way to add brightwork without the cost of changing the door sheetmetal. Whatever the aesthetic appeal of the downward arc of the upper-fender character line, it didn’t easily lend itself to being dressed up.
Raymond Loewy’s design team had apparently learned from its mistakes in 1954, such as when the President sedan was adorned with a thick chrome piece that plowed right through the character line. Why did they add a crease that would be problematic only one year later?
The 1955 President’s butter-knife chrome piece wasn’t an ideal solution, but at least it didn’t sag at the B-pillar like the upper-fender trim on the top-end 1956 model, which was called the Golden Hawk. Nor was there a weird zig-zag to accommodate the tacked-on tail fins.
For 1955 all Studebakers received a much more chrome-laden fascia. This worked the least well on the taller family cars, where the slope of the grille clashed with the upright hood. In contrast, the lower-slung coupes and hardtops arguably had a well-integrated, if rather chromey, look.
Hawk was a good idea in theory but poorly executed
For 1956 Studebaker management correctly — if belated — recognized that trying to use the same styling for its family cars and Loewy coupes was penny-wise and pound-foolish. That, in turn, led to giving the coupes a distinct nameplate — the Hawk.
Unfortunately, Studebaker assumed that the road to success was to throw as many doodads as possible onto the Hawk. Perhaps the only unambiguously good move was to get rid of the downward arc on the door sheetmetal. One could also argue that giving the trunk lid a boxier shape cultivated the illusion of greater luggage capacity, which was a weakness of the Loewy coupes. The problem with the ribbed motif was that it had an unduly busy look.
Also see ‘1956 Ugly Car of the Year Award: Indies get desperate’
The biggest mistake was not carrying over the hood from 1955. Instead, the Hawk was given a gaudy treatment worthy of Virgil Exner, replete with a radiator grille that looked like Jimmy Durante’s nose. This would not age well, particularly once the Thunderbird switched to a four-seater in 1958.
Even though Studebaker management insisted that gaudier styling would sell better, the opposite occurred. In 1956 Hawk output fell 44 percent — barely surpassing the two-seater Ford Thunderbird. That’s despite having a back seat, a larger model range and a much lower price.
In addition, Hawk production dropped a good 11 percent more than Studebaker’s family cars. While it’s true that the latter received more substantial sheetmetal changes, the luster of the Loewy coupes was clearly wearing off.
Why the 1955 models pointed in a better direction
As the 1950s wore on the Loewy coupes were likely to have had increasing trouble competing against the likes of the Thunderbird regardless of what Studebaker did. As I have argued here, the automaker was simply too small to keep two distinct bodies competitive in an era dominated by frequent styling changes.
Also see ‘Five (arguably) unresolved mysteries of postwar independent automakers’
However, I do think that the 1955 models pointed to a somewhat better path forward. This is because they were flashier than their predecessors but still displayed signs of good taste. As a case in point, the President had lovely ornaments at the peak of the front fenders. The rear fenders emulated tail fins without looking excessive. And the side trim was suitably trendy without being overwrought.
I grant you that the interior of the President looks less upscale than that of the pictured Golden Hawk.
Of course, during the 1955 model year Studebaker also came out with a limited-production model called the Speedster. The car’s diamond-shaped seat fabric was rather loud, but the Speedster also had a special dashboard with full instrumentation.
I would suggest that the 1955’s dashboard should have been carried over for at least a few years. It looked upscale and anticipated the strongly horizontal styling of mid-60s cars.
Also see ‘1956 Studebaker Golden Hawk: A match made in hell’
The redesigned 1956 dashboard may have had more complete instrumentation than all but the Speedster, but it looked bland and old fashioned. And as the Hawk aged, the dashboard — which was kept in production through 1961 — served to reinforce the impression that the car was a relic from a bygone era.
Studebaker struggled with how to sell sporty cars
The main problem with the 1955 Loewy coupes was that they were too heavily linked to Studebaker’s line of family cars. As a case in point, low-end models were offered that undercut the sportiness and prestige of Loewy’s trend-setting design.
Studebaker could have fixed this by ditching the strippo models when the Hawk was introduced — but did not. The end result was that by 1958, V8-powered hardtops represented only 11 percent of Hawk production. Of course, this partly reflected the onset of a recession. However, the new four-seater Thunderbird was selling like hot cakes despite a base price that was more than $400 higher than the Golden Hawk.
One could argue that Studebaker should have stopped offering six-cylinder models by 1956. By the mid-50s the automaker’s aging six was no longer competitive even in its family cars (Langworth; 1979, 1993). Such an anemic engine worked against the image of a sporty coupe.
By the same token, it might have also made sense to ditch the pillared coupe in 1956. If Studebaker was trying to sell the car primarily on its styling, the hardtop was clearly the better bet. In saying that I should acknowledge that Studebaker’s coupes did consistently sell better than hardtops from 1953-58.
However, by the mid-50s the public arguably associated coupes more with economy cars. And once Studebaker offered a “real” two-door sedan for its family cars in 1956, that arguably allowed the Hawk to focus more on being a sporty car.
In short, the 1955 President hardtop was a fairly good model for where Studebaker needed to go — a well-trimmed, V8-powered hardtop that looked stylish but not overdone. Alas, it was the road not taken.
NOTES:
This is an expanded version of a story originally posted Dec. 1, 2019. Production figures were calculated from base data found in the Encyclopedia of American Cars (auto editors of Consumer Guide, 2006) and the Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975 (Gunnell, 2002).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M.; 1979, 1993. Studebaker 1946-1966: The Classic Postwar Years. Motorbooks International, Osceola, WI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- ads.aacalibrary.org (Antique Automobile Club of America): Studebaker Hawk (1956)
- wildaboutcarsonline.com (Automotive History Preservation Society): Studebaker Hawk (1955)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Studebaker (1954, 1955, 1956)
On the subject of Studebaker dropping the 6-cylinder models by 1956, would a 200-202 V8 (as the company originally wanted to develop before settling for the 224) have been an adequate replacement for the inline-6 compared to a new inline-6 OHV or even less likely a Studebaker V8-derived V6?
Based on the Curbside Classic article on the Studebaker V8, it is a pity its development did not turn out better than it did. The article says Studebaker should have essentially copied certain key elements from the Cadillac V8 that specifically gave the Cadillac many of its inherent qualities and scaled it down to reduce the deck height of the block, save weight, and create a more compact engine almost reminiscent of a SBC precursor.
Also, the hand-shake agreement with AMC to buy their OHV 6 cylinder did not see light of day, so Stude was forced to use their own 185 flathead again (and they had already cancelled the tooling to convert it to a more efficient f-head) By the end of 1955 there was no money left to remedy the problem on their own.
Studebaker was a pioneer in the introduction of postwar American OHV V8’s (tied for third). It was a good bet at the time that future high octane gasoline availability would make a production engines prepared for this development simultaneously more powerful AND efficient. A worthy goal. Studebaker’s V8 was therefore robustly built to use new fuels (to about 14:1 compression ratio). But the big three’s engines grew mostly in size and power, with future efficiency not given the same consideration. So Studebaker, out of money at the wrong time again (er…still), was “stuck” with a sturdy, reliable engine, already more efficient (yes, more than a Chrysler Hemi in horsepower per cubic inch) than existing V8s of the day and well suited to take on the supercharging soon to come. BUT, henceforth, forged cranks and rods, big bearing sizes (bigger than a Chrysler “Hemi”), timing gears – not chains, no head gasket problems (more head bolts than even the competition’s later engines ), decent oiling, and solid lifters – were all “standard” on every Studebaker V8 ever made! Would you rather have that – or a more ubiquitous, cheaper-to-produce engine labeled as “cruder” by a number of machinists that know both?
Stewdi, I’d agree that the Studebaker V8 had a lot going for it. The basic challenge is that fielding a modern six-cylinder engine was much better suited to Studebaker’s narrow and light body. The Rambler basically stole the mid-sized family car market from them (go here for further discussion).
Since the above story focuses on the Loewy coupes, I might add that these cars arguably represented the best fit with Studebaker’s V8. Thus, it’s surprising to me how long the brand took to phase out six-cylinder Hawk models.
I have read a variety of scenarios about Studebaker’s situation with six-cylinder engines. Richard Langworth suggested that the F-head idea lost steam because it was “pretty old hat by 1955 standards” (1979, 1993; p.83).
Meanwhile, James Ward (1995) wrote that it was Studebaker-Packard head James Nance who in early 1955 rejected a request by AMC to buy the Studebaker V8. AMC proceeded to develop its own . . . and then insist that it did not have the capacity to sell sixes to Studebaker.
I question AMC’s answer. Langworth wrote that AMC had the capacity to produce 160,000 to 180,000 sixes in Kenosha. That would have filled the needs of both automakers until 1958, when AMC would have to expand production capacity anyway due to soaring Rambler sales. I have argued here that not trading engines was one of the bigger mistakes of AMC head George Romney.
Was it within Nash’s (later AMC’s) capability to both convert what later became the original AMC Straight-6 (originally the 600 / Statesman Six) to OHV earlier on as well as enlarge it to about 206 cu in / 3.4-litres (if not closer to around 3.5-4-litres)?
That’s a good question; my guess is that Nash could have but chose not to. Perhaps that was at least partly because they already had a larger six that was used on the Ambassador and the Nash-Healey.
There was probably room for it to reach 3470cc / 212 at most under Nash/AMC based on the overbores achieved with the 196, which slots it nicely below the 3.8/4.1 Ambassador engines without overlap whilst also indirectly replacing the latter in the early days of AMC (for use in the Rambler/American and Six/Classic) prior to the new AMC Six.