(EXPANDED FROM 4/2/2021)
After Studebaker and Packard combined in 1954, Motor Trend anticipated the possibilities of the two automakers sharing resources. For example, the magazine imagined Studebaker’s lightweight cars getting Packard’s “monstrous new V8 engine, torsion bar suspension and, lately, its 1st-in-the-industry limited-slip differential” (1956, p. 20).
Most of the potential “product synergies” didn’t work out due to cost reasons. For example, Packard’s “Torsion-Level” suspension was deemed too expensive even for high-end Studebaker President models (Langworth, 1979 1993).
The most significant product to come out of the marriage before its spectacular collapse was the 1956 Studebaker Golden Hawk, which was given a Packard V8 and its “Ultramatic” automatic transmission.
The strategy behind this new halo car would become a common one for the U.S. auto industry in future years: Shoehorn a powerful V8 into a relatively light body and watch the tires chirp — literally.
One might even go as far as to argue that the Golden Hawk was the granddaddy of 1960s “muscle cars” such as the Pontiac GTO.
What happens when a light car gets a big engine
The Hawk was a 1950s-version of a mid-sized car. Although its length was almost 204 inches, which was longer than a Chevrolet, its 70.4-inch width was more similar to postwar compacts.
This resulted in an unusually light body for the mid-50s U.S. auto industry. The shipping weight for the Golden Hawk was 3,360 pounds. That was around 320 pounds heavier than a Ford Thunderbird two-seater, 290 pounds lighter than a standard-sized Plymouth Fury and very close to another early muscle car — the compact 1957 Rambler Rebel (go here for further discussion).
When matched with a Packard V8, the Hawk had the best horsepower-to-weight ratio of any mass-produced U.S. car (Holland, 1956). Even when mated to Packard’s Ultramatic transmission, which “doesn’t take full advantage of the car’s potential,” Motor Trend stated that it “still had trouble trying to get off the mark without leaving black lines on the test strip” (1956, p. 22).
The 352-cubic-inch engine with four-barrel carburetor came from the Packard Clipper Custom. This was the only engine offered on the Golden Hawk, but Motor Trend (1956) envisioned an owner swapping in Packard’s 374-cubic-inch engine used on the top-of-line Caribbean, which pumped out 310 horsepower.
Golden Hawk was new top-end sporty Studebaker
From 1953-55 Studebaker’s lower-slung two-door coupe and hardtop were given the same nameplates as the brand’s more utilitarian family cars. That changed in 1956, when they were given a facelift and a new name — the Hawk.
Four models were offered: An entry-level pillared coupe with a six-cylinder engine was called the Flight Hawk. Add a 259-cubic-inch V8 and you got a Power Hawk. A hardtop model with a 289-cubic-inch V8 was named the Sky Hawk. At the top of the line was the Golden Hawk, which was given unique features such as tacked-on tailfins, lots of chrome and a sumptuous interior.
Prices ranged from $1,986 for the cheapest Hawk to $3,061 for the Golden Hawk. The latter car listed for more than the Plymouth Fury ($2,866) but less than the Ford Thunderbird ($3,151).
Golden Hawk’s handling was called nose heavy
Road tests lauded the car’s power more than its handling. For example, Car Life argued that the Golden Hawk’s “trouble is weight distribution. The car is heavy on the front end, which results in [a] tendency for rear wheel slide on dry pavement” (1956, p. 14).
Richard Langworth wrote that the Golden Hawk’s nose-heaviness resulted in the car understeering “with singleminded consistency, and sometimes even interfered with acceleration.” As evidence he quoted Tom McCahill: “Due to the tremendous torque of the engine (380 pounds-feet at 3800 rpm), and due to the [heavy engine], it is almost impossible to make a fast getaway start on any surface without considerable wheel spinning” (1979 1993; p. 86, original italics).
The 1957 Golden Hawk, which reverted back to Studebaker’s 289 cubic-inch V8, was widely considered a better-balanced sporty car. For example, Ken Fermoyle of Motor Life stated that even with the added weight of a standard supercharger that the car was “lighter than a Packard V-8” by roughly 120 pounds for models equipped with automatic transmissions (1956, p. 16).
“This has changed weight distribution from 59 per cent front, 41 per cent rear to approximately 57 per cent front, 43 per cent rear,” Fermoyle stated. “This might not seem like much but, with cars, figures don’t count as much as actual performance on the road. And taking that 100 lbs. or so off the front end has made a big difference in handling. It doesn’t take long behind the wheel of a ’57 Golden Hawk to prove that” (1956, p. 16).
Indie Auto commentator Michael B Nicolella has argued that it is a “common misconception” that the Packard engine was heavier than a Studebaker V8 and that it negatively impacted the car’s handling. However, he did not offer specific evidence to back up his argument.
I grant you that information sources can vary in their reported weights, but I question how so many road testers could have offered an inaccurate assessment of the Hawk’s handling. In addition, I don’t think it controversial to suggest that big-block V8s could negatively impact the handling of muscle cars in the 1960s.
Packard V8 doesn’t outlast the demise of its big cars
Barely 4,000 Golden Hawks left the factory during the 1956 model year. That was almost double its predecessor, the 1955 President Speedster — and only slightly less than the 1957 Golden Hawk, which tallied 4,356 units. So perhaps one could declare the car a modest success as a halo model.
That said, the 1956 Golden Hawk presumably did not sell well enough for the automaker’s management to keep in production the Packard V8 after 1956, when the brand’s big cars were discontinued.
Also see ‘The Studebaker Hawk reached its high point in 1957 — and fell rather quickly’
In a way that was a shame, because — unlike the Studebaker V8 — the Packard engine had hydraulic valve lifters and more room for growth. By 1964 the latter might have been helpful as the muscle car market emerged.
But on the balance, the Packard engine was arguably too big for most Studebaker customers. That this was the best product synergy Studebaker-Packard could quickly come up with hints at how the two brands were a match made in hell.
NOTES:
This article was originally posted on April 2, 2021 and expanded on October 12, 2024. Production figures and specifications are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Flory (2004, 2009) and 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; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Car Life; 1956. “1956 Golden Hawk.” Car Life. May issue: 14-15. Reprinted in Studebaker Hawks & Larks: Limited Edition Premier. Compiled by R. M. Clarke. Brooklands Books, Surrey UK.
- Fermoyle, Ken; 1956. “The 1957 Golden Hawk.” Motor Life. December issue: 16-17. Reprinted in Studebaker Hawks & Larks: Limited Edition Premier. Compiled by R. M. Clarke. Brooklands Books, Surrey UK.
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2004. American Cars, 1960-1972. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- ——; 2013. American Cars, 1973-1980. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M.; 1979, 1993. Studebaker 1946-1966: The Classic Postwar Years. Motorbooks International, Osceola, WI.
- Holland, Bill; 1957. “Studebaker Golden Hawk.” Speed Age. March issue: pp. 11-15. Reprinted in Studebaker Hawks & Larks: Limited Edition Premier. Compiled by R. M. Clarke. Brooklands Books, Surrey UK.
- Motor Trend; 1956. “’56 Studebaker Gold Hawk Road Test.” February issue: pp. 20-23.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- aacalibrary.org: Studebaker Hawk (1956)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Studebaker (1956)
The statement that the Packard engine was heavier than the Studebaker engine and affected handling is a common misconception. The weight of the car and front end balance was similar to the 1957 car. As for the styling, I find the smaller fin than the ’57 car is very attractive; The car was best looking of the Hawks up until the 1962 GT Hawk. (IMHO).
The Packard SAE paper on the 352 gives its dry weight as 698 lb, complete but without air cleaner. I’ve seen various figures for the Studebaker V-8 ranging from 620 to 685 lb, and the supercharger added 40 to 50 lb. One significant point might be how the engines were mounted in the chassis, which can have as much effect as overall weight.
Fermoyle wrote that the 1957 Golden Hawk was approximately 120 pounds lighter when comparing cars with automatic transmissions and around 100 pounds with manual transmissions. He insisted that the lighter weight of the 1957 model made an obvious difference in handling but acknowledged that new steering gear was also helpful.