The Studebaker Hawk arguably reached its peak 1957. This was when it sold the best — almost 20,000 units. This was also Peak Hawk from a styling standpoint.
For one shining moment, Studebaker had a well-sorted entry in the fledgling personal coupe market — and no direct competition. Alas, things went downhill rather quickly.
Our featured car is a Silver Hawk. For 1957 the lineup was pruned from four models to just two — the Silver Hawk pillared coupe (in six or V8) and the Golden Hawk hardtop (with a supercharged V8).
It made sense to cut back on a confusing number of models. For 1956 the Hawk was offered in Flight, Power, Sky and Golden versions. For 1957 the Silver Hawk essentially replaced the first two models here in the United States.
Did the Hawk keep the coupe and six too long?
When looking at production figures, one thing that surprised me was that the Hawk’s pillared-coupe was far and away the most popular body style. Perhaps this was because the hardtop was relegated to the Golden Hawk, which was priced at a then-hefty $3,182. That was dramatically higher than a Silver Hawk six ($2,142) or V8 ($2,263).
To put the Golden Hawk’s price into perspective, Plymouth’s top-end Fury listed for $2,925 and Ford’s Skyliner hardtop convertible was a bit higher at $2,942. On the other hand, the last two-place Thunderbird was priced higher than the Golden Hawk at $3,408.
Golden Hawk production was a bit better in 1957 but still modest — 4,356 units. In contrast, 15,318 Silver Hawks left the factory. Might the latter have sold better as a hardtop rather than a coupe, which looked archaic with its thick door-window frames? By 1957 pretty much every other American car with sporting pretensions came in a hardtop.
An additional factor was that, beginning in 1956, Studebaker offered a “real” two-door coupe on its family cars (previously a two-door sedan had been jerry-rigged from a four-door body). Thus, the Hawk no longer needed to include a coupe to round out the automaker’s lineup.
Recall that the Hawk’s basic design originated in 1953, when it was considered just another body style in the Studebaker family car lineup. Only in 1956 was the Hawk launched with the idea of carving out a distinct niche — what would come to be called the personal coupe.
The Silver Hawk may have been available with either a six-cylinder or a V8, but the latter was more than twice as popular as the former in 1957. Indeed, I am surprised that the six was still offered given that its aging L-head was too anemic for a sporty coupe. As it turned out, the six wouldn’t be dropped on American models until after 1959.
Hawk’s styling improved but was no match for T-Bird
For 1957 the Hawk received some noteworthy stylistic improvements. Perhaps most importantly, the tailfins that had been tacked onto the Golden Hawk in 1956 were given a more aesthetically appealing shape — and used across the lineup. In addition, the Golden Hawk was mercifully dechromed.
Also see ‘1955 Studebaker President hardtop hints at a road not taken’
Unfortunately, Studebaker designers couldn’t afford to give the Hawk a new front end. For 1956 management had insisted on a gaudier fascia to halt sliding sales (Langworth, 1979, 1993). It didn’t work out as planned — production was down almost 35 percent from 1955. Things improved slightly in 1957, but the Hawk was also outsold by the Ford Thunderbird for the first time.
Note that this occurred even though the T-Bird was both more expensive and was still a two seater. Could it be that the Ford’s cleaner styling translated into more buyers?
The Hawk’s styling also wasn’t helped by fins so tall that they accentuated the increasingly obsolete shape of the Hawk’s deck. Teardrop styling may have been trendy in 1953, but that was no longer the case by the late-50s.
This became particularly apparent when the Thunderbird was upsized to a four-seater in 1958. The car’s squared-off look made the Hawk look ancient.
The Hawk would look equally passé on the inside. Whereas Studebaker still stuck with a bench seat and a fairly plain and old-fashioned dashboard, the Thunderbird sported bucket seats, a center console and a dual-pod dash.
The Hawk tanked in 1958 — and never quite recovered
The Hawk entered the 1958 model year with few changes even though it faced formidable new competition from the Thunderbird. Whereas the new Ford saw output soar by 77 percent to almost 38,000 units, the Hawk fell by 58 percent to only just over 8,000 units.
The Hawk’s dismal sales may have partly reflected external factors. Studebaker’s very public financial struggles may have scared off some customers. In addition, the Hawk received new internal competition when a two-door hardtop was added to the family car lineup (go here for further discussion).
My guess is that the Hawk’s biggest problem was its dated styling. This was a deadly sin for a personal coupe, whose fortunes tended to rise and fall on the trendiness of its looks. Like other postwar independent automakers, Studebaker was too small to afford being a design trend setter on a consistent basis.
NOTES:
Specifications and production figures from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006), Gunnell (2002) and Quinn (2020).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993, 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.
- Quinn, Richard; 2020. “1957-59 Studebaker Silver Hawk: Bird of a Different Color.” Collectible Automobile. June issue: pp. 38-47.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Ford Thunderbird (1959); Studebaker Hawk (1957)
A few thoughts-
1. I was surprised that the Silver Hawk outsold the Golden Hawk, but a 50% premium was a shocker. You are right about the coupe. The B pillar in fact seems unusually thick for the era. Maybe because the vent window sized rear side window accentuates it.
2. Considering Stude’s tight budget why not drop the pillared coupe? It always seemed dumb to me.
3. The 58 hardtop confused my 7 year old self. It looked like some misshapen 57 Plymouth.
4. The instrument panel looks like something a hot rodder would do with his 32 Ford.
5. The Gran Turismo Hawk looked so much better.
Perhaps the most enduring image of the Studebaker Hawk (for me, other than Dick Passwater driving his red and white U.S.A.C. Hawk stock car) is the ad for the 1961 Studebaker print ad in “Car & Driver” featuring journalist, railroad historian, society writer and gourmand Lucius Beebe standing outside his mansion in Hillsborough, California (with his Bentley and Jaguar XK-140) featuring his 1961 white Studebaker Hawk ! “The Best of Everything” reads the ad copy !
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/fC4AAOSwjd9mZmHv/s-l1600.webp
For a while I had wondered whether the Hawk could be seen as America’s first pony-car, instead of the later Avanti. This article helps to answer that question for me: It is. Of course, many would dispute that, likely because Studebaker by then was in such bad shape that it drained Packard dry after that merger (despite Packard’s own problems, it was still the better of the two in financial status); whereas the likes of Ford and GM were not…well, by ’58 they were, but their existence still had better guarantees than Studebaker’s. But to me, Studebaker still holds the status of marketing the first pony-cars–small 2-door cars that are kind of like sports cars with back seats–years ahead of Ford.
Tony, that makes sense. The Loewy coupes functioned in a somewhat similar manner as the Mustang — two-door models that were more stylish than the usual family cars but could be bought for a relatively low price. Or they could be dressed up in a variety of ways for more money. These Studebakers were longer than the Mustang but almost as narrow — and relatively light weight for their time.
I’ve argued (go here) that one of Studebaker’s big mistakes was to split its meager resources between the taller family cars and the Loewy coupes. So what ended up happening is that the family cars got more updates, which resulted in the coupes being uncompetitive by the time the four-seater Thunderbird showed up.
It makes sense, but Studebaker was in such bad financial straits/reputation by the early 60’s that Ford would never consider copying something they’d have done for the Mustang. It took the success of the Corvair Monza to make the lightbulb go off at Ford. Mainly because the Monza was a success. Which the Hawk definitely wasn’t after 1957. If you could call those kinds of numbers “successful” in the first place.
Welp, my blood pressure is at a tolerable level today. I’m quite sure that it wasn’t when I first read this article a week ago. As an almost life-long Studebaker supporter, it looks – at least to me – that this has more holes in it than a donut shop!
It has taken a while to calm down. In the interests of stable medical stats, this will be brief.
A correction for you: For domestic US sales, the six cylinder was dropped after 1959 (NOT 1962), but still available for export only. The 289 was the standard engine from that point forward.
The ’57 Silver Hawk coupe was the basic equivalent of a ’56 Power Hawk coupe. In ’56 a non-“Golden” hardtop Sky Hawk model (with 289 V8) was also offered, but at an almost $400 price premium over the Power Hawk – not far from 20% more. Now, how would it have made sense to drop the cheaper coupe and offer only more expensive models when ,in 1955, the sales for independent manufacturers was down 34.8% from 1953 (1956 total industry figures were also down from 1955) and the country was about to enter into the sharp “Eisenhower Recession”. Studebaker did the right thing and Hawk sales were stable even though the loss of dealers, thanks largely to the staggeringly precarious financial woes of S-P (2,178 in late 1954, 1,423 in February, 1956).
This last dealer stat could cement my theory that sales of the ’57 T-Bird actually looked quite bad, and that the public, in fact, responded positively to the Hawk changes made for that model year.
In November of 1956, FoMoCo had 10,000 dealers in total across it’s divisions, so perhaps Ford stores alone had at least 300% of the dealers that Studebaker did. So, for ’57 the “new”, one-year-only, more substantial Bird should have made real gains – and it did. But it sold less than 10% more than the same-old-bodied ’57 Hawk. What a waste of money! And it MUST have confirmed to any intelligent product planner at Ford that the 4/5 passenger Hawk was the right kind of configuration for a ’58 update to sell their car with “sporting pretensions” (and that Studebaker really had the first postwar “personal ” cars).
The B-pillars were thick-ish for the late ’50s, but l think FEW cared. They didn’t stop men with taste who also owned high-end European cars – like Lucius Beebe and James Mason – from buying Hawks (these guys and others starred in ’61 Hawk ads! Volkswagens had thick pillars until’65. Volvo’s PV544 had thick pillars AND “sporting pretensions” until its end, also in ’65. Our family bought a Silver Hawk in 1959 and were proud of it. The size of the pillars entered no one’s head.
They do look big in your picture, but in real life, it was not a “thing” or a concern mentioned in any contemporary road test design write-up that l’ve ever seen.
The ’56-61 Hawk dash was made to look “classic” and succeeded – and it was praised universally by magazine road testers until its demise. And it was sportier and a better idea than the “juke-box” designs then popular for a short time.
The six was for economically-minded customers. But because a six’s shipping weight was just 2790 pounds, the newer 185, 101 hp engine could cope with traffic in an environment where a new Bugeye Sprite went 0-60 in 20.5 seconds and an early ’60s Spitfire’s time was 16.4.
Sorry – l guess it wasn’t brief after all. l’ll stop here (thankfully, l know).
Remember Stewdi, James Mason also did Thunderbird wine ads. For those who are old enough to remember who James Mason was and Thunderbird wine, check it out on YouTube.
Thank you for the information on Hawk sixes. I’ve changed the text.
I’m curious as to why your blood pressure would run so high on such a topic. Do you find that you struggle with mood management in other realms of your life? If so, that’s not something you have to live with — folks work through it all the time. However, that can be easier to do by taking a class or talking with a specialist.
The next time you find your blood pressure shooting off the charts when reading Indie Auto or any other car blog, I would also invite you to take a quick read of Mike Spinelli’s experience in dealing with old car buffs (go here). Correcting the historical record and debating robustly are good things, but it sure helps the discussion when folks don’t get too wrapped around the axle.
Thank you for your concern, Steve, but l like old cars (a prerequisite for Indie participation) and some passion for their history – Studebaker in particular (as you may have gathered on occasion!).
l had to wait almost a week until life allowed me some time to do some research for a reply. No “axle wrap” action there. I’ll admit that perhaps the “intro” to it was too strong, and l apologize. The blood pressure reference was simply an ol’ anecdote, used when someone is confronted with something perhaps seemingly unreasonable and contrary to their passion.
As for old car buffs, we all have our passions (no news to you or other editors) and different levels of it. Hopefully when crafting (that’s too good a word for my brain) Indie comments, l can find the proper stats and time to present what l feel is the better way to look at some aspect.
But, statistically, some editor out there in cyberspace will someday present an discussion idea such as, maybe, “The b-pillar on a ’57 Nomad is too wide” – and then drop that in front of an on-line Chevy group! There will be Roman Candle fireworks! l’m only a firecracker (most times).
By 1957 can you name another American car considered sporty that was a pillared coupe rather than a two-door hardtop? Imports aren’t a good comparison — the more expensive ones somewhat comparable to the Hawk were still marginal sellers in the U.S. They also had cachet as foreign cars that the Hawk did not possess.
In addition, the Big Three was starting to shift its two-door sedans to thin-pillar designs. Sure, the switch wouldn’t be complete for a few more years, but the Hawk coupe’s greenhouse still looked dated — particularly for what was supposed to be a sporty halo car. Even the dowdy Rambler American — the only other U.S. car that had an older design than the Hawk — had thinner door frames.
I don’t think that being a fan of a car means refusing to acknowledge reasons why it might have sold better. Coming out with the Loewy coupes represented a huge financial gamble for such a small automaker, so they had to sell in a high enough volume to pay for updates. That didn’t happen, so by 1958 the Hawk was old hat compared to the Thunderbird. Yet the Hawk’s basic design wouldn’t change until 1962 — after the T-Bird had already received a full redesign.
By 1960 the Hawk was arguably a net minus — its styling was so outdated that it contributed to the narrative that Studebaker was a dying automaker. And by that point the Hawk was selling so poorly that shifting the nameplate to a top-end, sporty Lark hardtop and convertible might have actually sold better.
My first was a 1957 silver Hawk, I was 17 and I really liked it; however I had the opportunity to trade it for a 1960 Hawk 289 V8 with front bucket seats red vinyl covering front and back. Solid White exterior. In my opinion it was a far better car than the 1957. I kept it for several years, dated in it, still drove it a few years after I married. I really loved that car!
He’ll always be Captain Nemo to me.
I must seem like a jerk because of my vehement Studebaker opinions/excuses, but l do like standing up for an interesting company with soooo much history that is being “lost”, or at least “mis-remembered” in the cacophony of what is currently “popular” automotive history.
But if you can’t discuss your opinions on Indie (and, hopefully, back them up!), then where can you?
Not many of us left Stewdi who remember Studebakers in the wild, with their side cowl vents like some vestigal tail, and the big vertical rust streak behind the fender. We’re a dying breed-literally.
You’re right, Steve, l cannot name another American sporty, “thick” pillared coupe in 1957. For ’56 l could proffer the Ford Crown Victoria, but that was just a thick b-pillar (that design feature would be revived in ’77 with the revamped T-Bird).
Studebaker-Packard’s financial future was in doubt as the ’57s were being readied and by the summer of 1956 and it was bleak to the point of dealers jumping ship in droves. Hired consultants reported to S-P that bankruptcy was a possible scenario. Financial articles were being openly published about its dire plight. As much as thinner door frames may have looked nice on its C3 coupes, that tooling change was not made and wisely, l think, for 1957.
As proof, l offer that despite a severely depleted dealer network, the ’57 Hawk models lost no sales ground from the previous year! The Studebaker pillared Hawk and “Loewy coupes” have a model designation of C3. In 1956, the domestic sales of Flight Hawks and Power Hawks (that year’s C3s) were, together, 11,484 units. In 1957 the C3 body was, domestically, the Silver Hawk and sold 14,950 copies, a 30% increase despite having, apparently, horribly dated door frames and pillars. This affliction obviously was not a real detriment to sales.(As a side note, interestingly, 368 K3 hardtop Silver Hawks were also produced for Canadian and export markets.)
But, please compare C3 Hawk sales by an emaciated, embattled S-P to the sales of AMC’s sporty Marlin which was a “modern” hardtop. Well, it took 3 years for AMC’s many thousands of successful dealers to sell 17,419. Public acceptance of the thick-framed doors of the Hawk doesn’t seem so bad.
But would thinner pillars have sold more ’57 C3s for Studebaker? Maybe, but not likely. The hard-to-come-by money was saved – and perhaps put toward three hardtop models which were sorely needed to hopefully help survive the 1958 model year, namely hardtops for their sedan-bodied 2-doors, and the Packard Hawk, all totalling just 5,109 (but in all likelihood, did make a little money for them) .
l am not refusing to acknowledge that you’ve made a legitimate suggestion to improve ’57 Silver Hawk sales, but l do not acknowledge that it actually would have made any real difference that year – and, l feel that l have given some major reasons and evidence why. Isn’t Indie a forum for automotive history enthusiasts where ideas should be weighed and discussed, not just automatically acknowledging a position is right – or wrong, even if it is suggested by the editor?
The Loewy coupes might have sold better with other features such as a modern wrap-around windshield, another legitimate suggestion. They even built such a prototype to assess the idea – but they seemed to have acknowledged that such a redesign was ill-advised because of cost and/or poor results, because the idea died.
30,132 C3 coupes (no hardtops included) were sold just from ’57 to ’59. l have not included ’60 or’61 models which you discount as being a “net minus” – and certainly, they were “old hat” by then. But that makes 129,382 C3’s made in total over 9 model years. In three of the years they were just made for part of the time and could have sold better if Stude had tried harder to make them all year (a good argument for your “net minus” designation).
Think of the racers, however! These coupes were used for DECADES as good bodies for such things as record-holding Bonneville Salt Flats racers, making records at least into the 1990’s! And the in the revival of the Carrera Panamericana race, it has been said that if you are serious about winning, it would be best to use a Studebaker Coupe body. Aerodynamics, again, right? And with a thick-framed coupe, the windows don’t bow out at high speed as they would with a hardtop. Coupes win again!
lt is agreed that the production of a separate body from sedans was a gamble. As you know, the car sold fairly well in its first three years. l hope that S-P would have amortised the tooling by the end of that time, despite many sales lost because of the early production line disaster. ln it’s favor was the fact that for a long time, was no American competition for a sporty-looking, low-slung, extraordinarily good looking (especially ’53 and ’54 for my taste) 5-place coupe/hardtop model. It was the birth of the “personal” car, and, yes it did have some of the “optionality” (new word?) that was present a decade later on the Mustang and other pony cars. The Stude coupes, however, were kinda pricey for the ’53 youth market, many of whose members did not have the cash of the baby boomers of a decade later and so, were incapable of selling in stratospheric numbers as did the reasonably priced Mustang and GM pony cars. And the Studes had 120 inch wheelbases and an almost 17 foot length. Further V8 performance was in another relm in ’53, not as “hot” as l964. The “Rocket” 303 Olds had just 135 horses when it appeared and a 232 V8 Stude had 120. 0-60mph times for both cars was significantly over 10 seconds and no pony-car-like muscle was then present.
Sorry for my wordiness.