The early 50s were a very fertile time for automotive creativity, and engine swapping was as rampant as wife swapping (supposedly) was in certain parts of the country a decade later. We looked at a Cadillac-powered 1946 Continental here recently, but here’s another one that involved a brand new car, the 1953 Studebaker, which was of course the most dramatic new car that year, and certainly the most aerodynamic. That made it attractive to those looking for some serious speed, both on the salt flats as well as the highway. Bill Frick created a cottage industry, first with a Fordillac, but then turned his attention to the new Studebaker coupe. Tom McCahill tested on for Mechanix Illustrated.
(the second page of this review was not inserted in its source properly, but the text is available, below)
The steering reminded me of a TC MG, which means positive but a little on the hard side. The ride, though firm, was certainly comfortable, especially considering the car weighed more than 100 pounds less than an American Ford. The performance was far from flashy and in no way complimented the design. This was due principally to the torque converter transmission which sapped the torque of the small Studebaker V-8 engine, just the way rubber boots would slow up a tournament tennis player. The also available three-speed-and-overdrive transmission is a far wiser choice for those who want respectable performance to go with the car’s looks. If you really want performance, however, performance that will nail all other—and I mean all other—cars to the road in a red light race, then Bill Frick’s Studillac is the answer. The Studillac, a direct descendant of Frick’s Fordillac, will even run away from an XK 120 Jaguar as if it were a highway sign.
The big complaint I’ve been hearing about the new Studies was not on their looks but on the way they are finished. This is a factory and dealer fault that does not take away from the car’s over-all appearance nor the stability of the engine.
The steering reminded me of a TC MG, which means positive but a little on the hard side. The ride, though firm, was certainly comfortable, especially considering the car weighed more than 100 pounds less than an American Ford. The performance was far from flashy and in no way complimented the design. This was due principally to the torque converter transmission which sapped the torque of the small Studebaker V-8 engine, just the way rubber boots would slow up a tournament tennis player. The also available three-speed-and-overdrive transmission is a far wiser choice for those who want respectable performance to go with the car’s looks. If you really want performance, however, performance that will nail all other—and I mean all other—cars to the road in a red light race, then Bill Frick’s Studillac is the answer. The Studillac, a direct descendant of Frick’s Fordillac, will even run away from an XK 120 Jaguar as if it were a highway sign.
The big complaint I’ve been hearing about the new Studies was not on their looks but on the way they are finished. This is a factory and dealer fault that does not take away from the car’s over-all appearance nor the stability of the engine.
I’d almost forgotten how beautiful those Starliner Coupes were, especially considering contemporary designs.
The best shout out to this car is the one Felix drives in Diamonds are Forever (the book)!
Tom McCahill was SO entertaining! Hemmings Motor News, in an article about him:
On the 1957 Buick’s handling: “Like a fat matron trying to get out of a slippery bathtub.” On re-powering the 1955 Packards: “Changing to a V-8 was like Harry Truman voting Republican.” On the 1957 Ford’s build quality: “Rugged as an Irish riot in a Russian saloon.” On the effectiveness of the 1958 Chrysler Imperial’s air conditioning: “Cold enough to blue the lips of an Eskimo blubber collector parked inside a blast furnace.” On the 1956 AMC Rambler’s size: “As short as a Sing Sing haircut.”
Contrast that to today’s reviewers trying to wax sort of poetic about the latest silver with mouse-fur grey interior BMYotavrolet that looks like a Hondsan.
Of course, in this review, he had a stunning car with very capable mechanicals. That’s always inspiring.
Also, look at what he says farther down on the last page, in the continuation of the review about the Austin Healey: “…for $4000 or less, at this moment the Austin Healey is the best sports car in the world.”
No nonsense about “one of the best.” Or, even worse, “one of the most unique,” which should land any professional writer into the corner of his English class, wearing a dunce cap. Uniqueness is absolute…there can be only one of it. Something is unique, or it’s not. Tom McCahill was unique.
“The roof clears your head by just one application of Vitalis…” priceless!
My favourite quote was from a British motoring journalist who was lamenting his 1970 Alfa Romeo Giulia’s frequent and prolonged visits to his local garage.
“If money talks; all its’ ever said to me…..is goodbye”
+1
Came across this: https://flemingsbond.com/studillac/
From looking at the quote from the book, it’s obvious that Ian Fleming was a Tom McCahill fan, too.
Some of this is damn close to verbatim:
“Well I’ll be damned,” said Bond incredulously. “But what sort of a car is this anyway? Isn’t it a Studebaker?”
“Studillac,” said Leiter. “Studebaker with a Cadillac engine. Special transmission and brakes and rear axle. Conversion job. A small firm near New York turns them out. Only a few, but they’re a damn sight better sports car than those Corvettes and Thunderbirds. And you couldn’t have anything better than this body. Designed by that Frenchman, Raymond Loewy. Best designer in the world. But it’s a bit too advanced for the American market. Studebaker’s never got enough credit for this body. Too unconventional. Like the car? Bet I could give your old Bentley a licking.”
Yep, we covered this a little ourselves. Loved his T-birds too did Fleming.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-cinema/cc-biography-ian-fleming-the-man-who-loved-thunderbirds/
I hope the Rosicrucians bought some Studillacs.
In his autobiography ‘They Call Me Mr. 500’, the late Andy Granatelli noted that Grancor in Chicago (the speed shop owned by he and his brothers) also built Fordillacs.
My sister’s ex had a complete archive of old Mechanix Illustrated going back to the 1930’s, to about 1960. As a teenager, I spent hour after hour reading Tom McCahill articles. His language seemed so archaic and it was interesting how the qualities one wanted in a car have changed so much.
Tom goes on at length about build quality. I think a lot of us are willingly blind about this issue. Modern cars may not have tail fins, but they are very well put together.
Transplanting engines was pretty common at the time, but I wonder why the Studebaker V-8 wasn’t just hopped up, perhaps supercharged?
The 1953 Studebaker V8 was pretty weak: 232 CID and 120 hp. The Cadillac had almost double that, with 210 hp. And speed parts for the Cad V8 for even more power were readily available. Not so for the Stude, which never developed a big following in the go-fast crowd, as it was almost as heavy as the much bigger V8s from Cadillac, Olds, Buick, etc..and the early versions didn’t breathe all that well, as it was not designed for high output originally. But he does mention that some folks have hopped up the Stude V8.
Also, the Paxton supercharger, used later on Golden Hawks and other cars, may not have yet been available in 1953.
McCulloch Motors introduced their VS57 supercharger in September 1953, and showed a number of cars fitted with one. I’ll bet it wasn’t cheap.
I just read the whole Paxton Supercharger history at that link; fascinating.
They suffered from lots of reliability issues.
The ’57 Golden Hawk’s 289 V8 had a McCulloch supercharger. Check out the “Jet Stream” badge right on the supercharger itself.
One of the most disheartening parts of the article is when he talks about sabotage by the assembly-line workers. That is so absolutely insane, for one of these guys to cut their own throat by doing that, hastening the company’s demise.
It’s not like Studebaker had a huge following, anyway, but imagine someone new to the brand and a Studebaker service department finding that a rattle or noise was caused by worker debris intentionally left inside some sealed part of the car. It’s the sort of thing that goes a very long way to ruining a manufacturer’s reputation, and Studebaker didn’t exactly have a good one to begin with.
I recall a story told by a South Bend dealership mechanic, corroborated by a parts counter guy. Evidently, after tearing apart a new Studebaker headliner to try and locate a persistent noise that would only occur upon either acceleration or deceleration near the driver’s head, they eventually found a little bottle in the roof, filled with bb’s and a note that read, “Aw, ya found me didn’t ya, ya bastard!”. I wonder how much the responsible party laughed after 1964.
Personally I think these stories are just that, stories. Some guy told me, he heard from some guy, this or that. Where are the photos to prove these tales? Film did exist in the 50s. Where are contemporary news reports on such things? And not Uncle Toms anti-UAW screed.
I have no doubt that Studebakers QC was a joke but even so, without some first hand evidence for these tales, I’m not buying tales of elaborate deliberate sabotage..
Greetings Msj,
Clearly you have never worked on a Union assembly line? Nor on one after negotiations have broken down and you’re waiting for your steward to say Stop?
Photos, in the 50’s? There weren’t cell phones and still and movie cameras were not exactly small.
Deliberate sabotage, for a host of reasons, not always company focused, sometimes supervisor oriented.
Read Rivet Head, Adventures of a LIne Worker?
Neighbor down the street found a coke bottle in a panel of his new ’58 Ford. I once heard a dealer describe assembly line workers as “perverts.” There are so many Coke bottle stories, I wonder why management allowed bottles in the plants.
Maybe that’s it: Coke bottles weren’t allowed so the line workers would sneak them in and get rid of the empties in the cars.
On our 1971 Ford LTD, when I was cleaning out the bottom of that compartment behind the front fender, I found an extra door hinge thread plate that had fallen down during assembly. I don’t think it was intentional – instead of fishing it out, the worker just grabbed another one and carried on with installing the door hinges.
It is interesting that the Studebaker V8 gave up nearly 100 cubic inches to the Cadillac engine but weighed only 50 pounds less. Also interesting is that in their final versions the Stude and original Cadillac V8s finished with an even greater spread at 304 and 429 cid.
I have read that there was still room for growth in the Stude block but that new castings with a different design for the water jackets would have been necessary. There was supposedly a test engine built that was around 340 cid when South Bend engineering was shut down.
Small cubic inches was the norm for smaller cars in the early 50s. The contemporary Ford flathead V8 was 239 cid and Mercury offered a 255. The 300 cid threshhold was like 400 cid would become by the early 60s.
If you compare the profiles of a ’53 Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth to the Stude you can see how the styling compromised the roominess of the passenger and trunk compartments. Studebaker got there first, but the big three didn’t get into that low profile styling until Chrysler debuted their “forward look” several years later.Think of how this relates to the posts about the end of the sedan. This was the first indicator that style would over rule practicality.
This writer certainly brought a smile to my face! Today’s automotive writers aren’t so frank in expressing their views.