1939 Studebaker coupe express - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

t walgamuth · #1 10-23-2012, 09:50 AM

I have been daydreaming about one of these lovelies. They are built on the passenger car frame with the same doghouse. It has one of the most graceful pickup beds ever and it has factory independent front suspension.

Can someone instruct how to make this picture larger, please?

MS Fowler · #2 10-23-2012, 04:26 PM

1937-1939 ranks ( for me) as one of the best eras of US car design, ( along with 1963-1965).
Very few ugly cars in that period.

Benz Fan · #3 10-23-2012, 04:36 PM

Lincoln and LaSalle produced some beautiful cars in that period.

barry12345 · #4 10-23-2012, 07:25 PM

There is also an element of the lincon continental design of that perios present in the front end of that studebaker come to think about it. The grill is wide like some of them where.

I also did not realise that Raymond Lowery was doing design work for studebaker that early. The local studebaker dealer in my present area was very active and sold a lot of product locally before I moved here.

About the only studebaker left here is the closed dealerships service truck perhaps a 1 1/2 to three ton studebaker truck in good restored condition. A 1954-55 vintage or close to it.

I had a chance to pick up an early dictator sedan with wooden artillary wheels that needed a fairly minor restoration. He wanted too much even twenty five years ago for it.

Some of the best design work in my opinion was done in the middle depression years. They really pulled it all together to sell the cars in that period.

There were several brands back then that eventually became orphan cars. Almost all brands that had only a very small portion of the domestic market to themselves got catagorized as such. Studebaker, Hudson, Willys,Fraser, Henry J to quote some. Plus a few others that do not come instantly to mind.

Studebaker pushed high fuel milage when fuel was very cheap. I am not really sure of what eventually killed studebaker. Economy of scale production wise may have eventually sealed their fate though.

Our family had two willys cars and one willys station wagon. Only one Hudson over the years though. The hudson was a 46 or 47 and was quality built but had an odd body design compared to the majority of brands. This was our families extent of orphan cars owned.

The three companies Peerless, Pierce arrow, and Packard that were generally creditied with building the best cars in reasonable numbers at one time. Although not cheap to buy all failed over time. They just failed to produce cheaper cars for the masses when they perhaps should have.

t walgamuth · #5 10-23-2012, 08:35 PM

I think economy of scale is about right. My dad used to say that GM could put them out of business any time they wanted to as they owned so many of the companies that made parts for stude such as diffs and trannys.

t walgamuth · #6 10-23-2012, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry12345

There is also an element of the lincon continental design of that perios present in the front end of that studebaker come to think about it. The grill is wide like some of them where.

I also did not realise that Raymond Lowery was doing design work for studebaker that early. The local studebaker dealer in my present area was very active and sold a lot of product locally before I moved here.

About the only studebaker left here is the closed dealerships service truck perhaps a 1 1/2 to three ton studebaker truck in good restored condition. A 1954-55 vintage or close to it.

I had a chance to pick up an early dictator sedan with wooden artillary wheels that needed a fairly minor restoration. He wanted too much even twenty five years ago for it.

Some of the best design work in my opinion was done in the middle depression years. They really pulled it all together to sell the cars in that period.

There were several brands back then that eventually became orphan cars. Almost all brands that had only a very small portion of the domestic market to themselves got catagorized as such. Studebaker, Hudson, Willys,Fraser, Henry J to quote some. Plus a few others that do not come instantly to mind.

Studebaker pushed high fuel milage when fuel was very cheap. I am not really sure of what eventually killed studebaker. Economy of scale production wise may have eventually sealed their fate though.

Our family had two willys cars and one willys station wagon. Only one Hudson over the years though. The hudson was a 46 or 47 and was quality built but had an odd body design compared to the majority of brands. This was our families extent of orphan cars owned.

The three companies Peerless, Pierce arrow, and Packard that were generally creditied with building the best cars in reasonable numbers at one time. Although not cheap to buy all failed over time. They just failed to produce cheaper cars for the masses when they perhaps should have.

It is very similar to the fords, mercury and Lincolns about the same era. All handsome cars.

daveuz · #7 10-24-2012, 12:13 AM

somewhat off topic but interesting:

The Packard 4M-2500 engine was utilized in all U.S. Navy World War II PT boats. This engine was based on the 1925 Liberty aircraft engine which was earlier converted for marine use in racing boats. During the war the Packard engine went through various performance updates and modifications. With early engines rated at 1100 h.p. and progressing to 1500 h.p. during the war. The Packard 4M-2500 engine was a supercharged, water cooled, gasoline powered V-12 engine, weighing approximately 2900 pounds.

The Packard 4M-2500 marine engine was not the Rolls-Royce Merlin, nor did U.S. Navy PT boats use the R.R. Merlin engines, which is sometimes misstated. However, Packard did built a version of Merlin Engine under contract by Britain for British aircraft use.
PT Boat Info - PT Boat - Pakard V-12 Marine Engine

and

http://www.outlawpulling.com/PDF/Packard%20Marine%20Engine.pdf

daveuz · #8 10-24-2012, 12:26 AM

out of the 37,38,39 which are 3 of the nicest looking pickups ever built I would have to pick the 37.

MS Fowler · #9 10-23-2012, 09:48 PM

barry,
I would argue that Packard, did, indeed, build lower prices cars for the masses. Their problem was that there was not enough difference between a 110, or a 120 and the Senior Packards--at least visually--they cars were very similar--and they all carried the Packard name. Packard might have done better if they had named their lower-priced lines something different--like Cadillac and LaSalle.
After the war, Packard was slow to market an automatic trans and and an OHV V8 engine.

t walgamuth · #10 10-23-2012, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

barry,
I would argue that Packard, did, indeed, build lower prices cars for the masses. Their problem was that there was not enough difference between a 110, or a 120 and the Senior Packards--at least visually--they cars were very similar--and they all carried the Packard name. Packard might have done better if they had named their lower-priced lines something different--like Cadillac and LaSalle.
After the war, Packard was slow to market an automatic trans and and an OHV V8 engine.

I have read that Packard lost image because of building the junior lines. They looked very similar and the large difference in size is only evident when they sit side by side. The large cars must be nearly twice as heavy.

Cadillac's strategy with the lasalle seemed to work. The first LaSalles after the cadillac buyout were essentially Oldsmobiles with caddy grills, straight eight and all IIRC. They soon switched over to Caddy v8's.

MS Fowler · #11 10-24-2012, 12:39 PM

Barry,
Thanks for the memory boost.
Vacuum wipers worked exceptionally well---when you didn't really need them, like when idling, or coasting to a stop.
Another challenge on those rainy nights when you were using the wipers was water-logged drum brakes. I drove thru a rain-swollen stream and rode with my foot on the brake pedal for better than a mile before they had any real function.
Yes, there has been some real progress over the years. "They don't them like they used to"--and that is a good thing.

t walgamuth · #12 10-24-2012, 04:45 PM

those vacuum operated wipers when operated off the intake vacuum were slightly better than manual wipers.

My 53 Caddy had them but had a vac pump in tandem with the fuel pump. That worked very well.

barry12345 · #13 10-24-2012, 06:53 PM

[QUOTE=t walgamuth;3035268]those vacuum operated wipers when operated off the intake vacuum were slightly better than manual wipers.

My 53 Caddy had them but had a vac pump in tandem with the fuel pump. That worked very well.[/QUOTE

I had a 1954 cadillac fleetwood for awhile. Very heavy and likeable car in many ways. The large v8 produced about 25 miles per imperial gallon on that monster.. Most much lesser and of course lighter cars did not produce that kind of fuel milage.

The last half decent cadillac to me was produced during the 1955/56 years. For starters in about 1957 they replaced and improved the engine so you netted maybe ten miles per gallon. Cadillacs slogan used to be. It was the standard of the world. They eventually fell off that concept..

I still have a two stage type fuel pump for a buick straight eight. Combining the fuel pump and vacuum pump in one assembly new on the shelf. Like Tom has done and continues to do.Some of this stuff has got to go.

t walgamuth · #14 11-03-2012, 03:44 PM

I was offered this one a couple of days ago. It looks pretty interesting. I can afford it, it looks pretty sound and it is closer to home than the other one I have been sniffing around. they are just too cool, they look chopped and channelled.

engatwork · #15 11-03-2012, 05:15 PM

Jump on it Tom. They are not getting any easier to get. Have you sold the Mazda yet?