It’s one thing to be graced with the most beautiful and forward-looking design of its time, being no less than the forerunner of every personal luxury coupe to come. It’s quite another thing to know how to actually build it and capitalize on it. The 1953 Studebakers were the last real opportunity to turn the foundering company around. Rarely has the expression “to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory” applied more fittingly and painfully. If it weren’t for the sheer thrill these cars still impart sixty years later, one could almost wish that the whole sad episode had never happened. But it did, so we’ll just have to buck up or get out the kleenex.
Only Studebaker could have built these cars. The Big Three would have laughed at the idea of building coupes with bodies completely unique from their sedan counterparts. And with such European flavor too. Heresy! Maybe a token roadster, like the low-volume Corvette or T-Bird, but those were really just halo vehicles in their early incarnations. And GM and Ford could well afford to lose a few pennies on them.
Chrysler kept churning out exquisite coupes, collaborations between its styling head Virgil Exner and Ghia. Those that were actually built for public consumption were strictly for the 1%. Except for their very brief dalliance with the Nash-Healey, AMC stuck to bread and butter sedans and wagons. There wasn’t any Rambler coupe for many of those years.
So what was Studebaker thinking, literally betting the company on a low-slung, very European coupe? Richard Langworth, author of “Studebaker 1946 – 1966: The Classic Postwar Years” summed it up this way: “If in 1950, executives had decided to put Studebaker out of the car business within the next fifteen years, they could hardly have gone about it in a more efficient way”.
Jim Cavanaugh covered the first main postwar chapter in his 1949 Land Cruiser CC, when Studebaker enjoyed record sales and profits in the post-war buying boom. As that receded, Studebaker faced an enormous existential crisis: to compete directly against The Big Three, or carve out niches in the increasingly competitive market? Or better yet, both!
That decision was partly made when Raymond Loewy, who’s firm had the contract to provide design services to Studebaker, came across a design that Bob Bourke had been working on for some time. Bourke envisioned it strictly as a show car, something along the lines of GM’s Motorama dream cars. But Loewy latched on to it, as it fully embodied the primary values he had been preaching for decades: slimness and grace. And although no one denies Bourke’s authorship of the Starliner coupe, without Loewy’s tutelage, patronage and most of all his ability to sell progressive ideas to a conservative management, it would have just ended up as another page in his portfolio.
Bourke’s coupe sat on the extra-long 120″ wheelbase Land Cruiser frame, to give it additional sweep and a long and graceful tail. Perhaps an odd choice, since more typically coupes often sit, if anything, on shorter wheelbases than their sedan counterparts. The decision to do so would be one of many that would haunt the ’53 coupes. Aesthetically, it does feel a bit extended, and I would love to see someone do a shorter version via photoshop.
Loewy designer Bob Koto was also invited to work on the development of the coupes, and he and Bourke shared one full-sized clay, each side reflecting their specific solutions to bringing it to fruition. Here’s a picture of Koto’s side. Loewy chose Bourke’s, and that part is history. But also just the beginning.
The coupe was a radical departure from the norm, especially for 1951, and Loewy fought an uphill battle in getting management approval. The board went back and forth, but Loewy’s vision for Studebaker espousing a decidedly European approach to design principles, which also reflected his mantra of smaller, narrower, and lighter, had powerful influence. Studebaker’s compact 1939 Champion, which Loewy designed, was the first, and all Studebakers since it were consistently narrower and lighter than the competition.
It also presented Studebaker with a fundamental challenge: to sell smaller cars for more money. Studebaker was very lazy with their union negotiations, fearful of confrontation and strikes, and keep the old-school chummy atmosphere. This led to Studebaker having consistently higher hourly and unit costs than the Big Three, ultimately perhaps the single biggest contribution to their demise.
In light of Studebaker’s market position, and the crushing ability for the Big Three to flood the market with discounted cars (as it did in 1953) Loewy’s hard sell for the ’53 coupes certainly carried some logic. If anything, Studebaker’s mistake was to not embrace the coupes more fully. It might have been hard to imagine that personal coupes would come to be the best selling cars in the land, as the dominance of the genre, and the Olds Cutlass Supreme showed so convincingly in the seventies and early eighties. But then drivers have always fallen for the allure of something more stylish and expressive than a dull sedan. That was already known in 1953, as it was in 1933 and 1973.
It’s well know that the ’53 coupes suffered from horrendous production problems and delays, as well as build quality issues. Doors wouldn’t open or close, there were huge panel gaps, Studebaker’s notorious rust issues were worse than ever, and behind the scenes, there were logistical production nightmares. Studebaker was simply not prepared to build two distinct cars, and it was the coupe that suffered disproportionately.
The reason being because the 1953 sedans were really not all that different under the skin from their predecessors. Which may have helped them avoid some of the build issues, but it created a whole other set of even bigger problems. They were essentially afterthoughts, and it showed. Instead of being original creations in their own right, a dollop of coupe styling cues were grafted unto a rather dumpy and charmless body. And their very weak sales reflected that. It didn’t have to be that way.
I’ve been in contact with former Studebaker (also Ford and Chrysler) designer Bob Marcks, who has forwarded me these sketches of how he thought it could have been done, with the sedans sharing the coupes’ bodies, resulting in (relatively) minor differences in the doors and roof. Given the coupe’s long wheelbase, there certainly would have been enough room to accommodate the extra door handily. In fact, it rather looks almost more balanced than the coupe.
Bob even had a model built from the sketches, the Starliner sedan. Nice.
I’ve always felt Studebaker got these two cars backwards, but then Studebaker used to be known for their coming-going issues. This long-wheelbase sedan, and a slightly shortened coupe might have been the real solution. But then everybody likes to armchair Studebaker to death.
Marcks also has some pithy insight on some of the many production (and other) problems with the ’53 coupes.:
First, Studebaker had let the unions write a contract which made the cars substantially overpriced; so they weren’t competitive for value. To compensate, the company took quality shortcuts: too much friction in the steering mechanism, weak frames, small brakes and other minor weaknesses.
Even worse, to reduce the initial tooling expense, they listened to an engineer who had a radical plan for reducing tooling costs. New dies for body panels are very expensive, to make a fender, for example, you can’t take a flat sheet of steel and stamp out a fender. It has to be done progressively; bent slightly, then into another die to bend and stretch it further and so on until the final die produces the final shape. Bend too quickly and the steel wrinkles or even splits.
A so-called “expert” persuaded Studebaker that he could save them tooling money by eliminating certain progressive dies. In a word, his plan was a disaster; he miscalculated and couldn’t produce panels which didn’t wrinkle and split. New dies had to be produced hastily and production was delayed. Orders couldn’t be filled, so customers, momentum and profits were lost forever. The public wasn’t aware of behind-the-scenes problems; the appearance was that the new Studebaker wasn’t popular.
So the outcome was a nightmare, and one that Studebaker never really recovered. In 1952, coupes made up some 27% of production. Studebaker assumed that would roughly continue. With the new coupes that changed to about 50%, by far the highest take rate for coupes in the industry. And that’s with production snafus. As Loewy had warned, the dull ’53 sedans not only didn’t ride the coupes’ coattails, they utterly fell into the gutter.
The result was a double disaster. And one which forced Studebaker into increasingly desperate measures to survive, the first being the ill-advised “merger” with Packard, which did nothing for Studebaker, and killed Packard. The only thing that kept Studebaker alive as long as it did was the little bounce it got from the 1959 Lark.
Yet “Loewy coupes” are clearly the prophets of the whole personal coupe market that was to sweep the land just as the last of the Studebaker Hawks were going extinct. The 1958 Thunderbird was the opening salvo in that massive wave, but a bit too pricy for the mainstream buyer.
The Corvair Monza, another eventual failure, definitively proved that Americans’ appetite for sporty coupes was very substantial. And the hunger for the Mustang was almost insatiable. But the T-Bird, Monza, Mustang were just the bookends.
When John DeLorean re-invented the 1969 Pontiac Grand Prix as a luxury/sporty mid-size coupe, and a quite affordable one, the formula that came to dominate Americans’ driveways was perfected. And what was that formula again? A mid-sized sedan frame extended to accommodate the longer hood and revised seating position, all done for the resulting long, low and sweeping good looks. Exactly the same formula as the ’53 Starliner coupe.
[The featured car is a 1954]

























I’d love a framed copy of that pencil sketch – it must have wowed even the most blockheaded executives. Who could say no to such a pretty thing? Sounds like the cars didn’t really do it justice.
I should add he drew those sometime in more recent years, a kind of “what if” scenario. Marcks didn’t start at Studebaker until after the ’53s were already a done deal.
Also, if you click on that sketch, it will come up in a substantially larger size.
A fabulous find! The 1953 Studebaker may be the ultimate triumph and tragety story of the U.S. auto industry.
You hit an important point, in that the coupe was a completely different car from the sedan, and Studebaker was ill-prepared for the production problems that this brought. That this coupe could serve as the basis for a modestly competitive product ten years later (the G T Hawk) speaks to how radically low the car was in 1953.
I have always counted it a tremendous shame that the willowy frame used on this car put the kibosh on a convertible (which had been a regular part of the lineup in the 1947-52 series). A stouter frame would have cured many of this cars problems, and a Commander Starliner convertible would have been a stunning car.
I had understood that the 53 sedan was not so much an afterthought, as a project that was hijacked at the last hour in an attempt to incorporate the coupe’s styling cues. The 1953 sedan had been in the planning stage for some time, as the 1947 body was in its 6th year by 1952. However, I am not sure that I have ever seen any pictures of the original proposal. But it had to have been better looking than what resulted. Still, the tall, stubby dimensions (that were not so uncommon in the industry at the time) would not have stayed in fashion for long.
It is a shame that this car’s owner felt the need to slap fender skirts on this particular example. Although I like fender skirts much more than the average bear, I do not think that they look good on this car. But still, how often are these seen in the wild today? You have made my day.
The 1953 models were supposed to debut for the 1952 model year, as part of Studebaker’s centennial celebration. They were originally dubbed “Model N” within the company. The radical coupe sketched by Robert Bourke changed these plans. The need to tool for the coupe, along with foot-dragging by management, pushed the debut date to the 1953 model year.
A magazine ran some photos of discarded Studebaker prototypes and styling studies. Apparently, when Studebaker was done with them, it simply tossed them onto wooded company property around South Bend. There were also some photos of styling studies for the original Model N proposal in either Langworth’s book or an old-car magazine in the late 1970s, if I recall correctly.
The sedans, as originally proposed, weren’t bad looking, but they weren’t earth-shattering, either. They probably would have sold better than the sedans that were produced in 1953.
Author Tom Bonsall made an interesting proposal. He suggested that Studebaker should have kept a facelifted version of the 1947-52 model in production for the sedans, and offered the Starliner and Starlight as a separate, new model. The old body was modern enough to have remained competitive with a facelift. This path would have still required Studebaker to tool up for a completely new car line. Whether the Starliner and Starlight would have generated enough sales to be profitable under this scenario is the unanswered question.
In the end, it probably wouldn’t have made much difference, as Ford-GM sales war of 1953-54 crippled the independents, and badly damaged Chrysler.
We could wonder what if the Ford-GM sales came off a bit later (1955) or what if Brook Stevens had redesigned the Hawk a bit earlier?
Also, the old Studebaker sign at their former proving grounds is still there from what I read on Hemmings http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2012/01/05/preservation-effort-under-way-for-giant-studebaker-sign/
That was an article in an SDC Turning Wheels issue. I think the Model N was pretty nice looking, I’ve seen pictures of the finished prototypes in a Studebaker book. It was kind of a cross between a bullet nose ’51 Studebaker and a ’51 Kaiser. Here is a link to the ‘prototype graveyard’ article on Bob’s Studebaker Resource website:
http://www.studebaker-info.org/TW/tw0972/tw0972p08.html
Count me as one who really likes fender skirts in general but in this case they just don’t work for me and ruin the lines.
The preponderance of fender skirts on restored/show cars cracks me up. As the son of a car dealer back then, believe me that fender skirts were nowhere near as prevalent as modern owners of vintage cars attempt to portray. Unless they originally came with the car (rare enough that I can’t remember off the top of my head which manufacturers did that and when), fender skirts were far and few between.
Ditto for A-pillar spotlights, fake exhaust ports, fake dual rear antennas, etc. About the only bolt-on option that was common back then was the under dash tissue dispenser, as they only cost about five bucks and were really easy to install.
The AMT 3-in-1 car kits we grew up building had all that stuff. Grownups build these kits in 1-to-1 scale.
I built at least one of these back in the day, maybe two. I remember one as navy blue with a white roof. I always built mine stock.
One prototype ’53 Starliner convertible was built; the new ’54 grille and trim were retrofitted a year later. I think this prototype survived and is still around.
“I would love to see someone do a shorter version via photoshop.”
Here’s a quick and dirty ‘chop.
Original version for comparison.
Thanks. What would be interesting is to keep the same greenhouse, but move the rear wheels up some, thereby shortening the tail. The wheels so far out in back are graceful, but not in keeping with more modern coupe proportions.
Howsabout this?
That’s it! Don’t you think that looks better?
There’s an ideal for the placement of the rear wheel, which seems to be under the visual termination of the c-pillar into the body. With the longer wheelbase used on the original car, that isn’t going to happen.
The weird thing is, I’m so used to seeing the car the way it was produced, I really hadn’t noticed that the rear wheel was too far back. The 1971-1974 AMC Javelin had a similar issue, but not as pronounced.
Perfect! The stock rear end never looked overlong to me before, now it does. Nice!
Or a SSK version?
That’s too stubby.
Imagine that puppy with a SBC and 4 speed in it! Although, with a short wheelbase like that, it would be very hard to control on launch…
You’re right though, aesthetically, it’s not correct.
Nice quick photoshopping! I agree with Paul the rear wheels are too far back. Keeping the greenhouse is another way of saying the personal coupe always has a back seat, which is narrower than a sedan’s due to the wheel wells intruding.
Squint a little, and you see a Karmann-Ghia.
(Oops, Tronan beat me to it.)
Marcks’ concept sedan is a nice looking car, especially for 1953. One could view it as a precursor of the now trendy four-door coupe, albeit with better rear visibility.
The chopped coupe strongly resembles a Karmann Ghia; others may disagree, but I think it improves on the somewhat ungainly look of the real thing.
What a great find and a great article! My father’s second car was a 1953 Champion Starlight. He had sold his first car – a 1950 Champion – to my grandparents and bought the Champion. He loved that car, and racked up over 100,000 miles on it, which is no small feat in Pennsylvania, considering how much salt is put on the roads in winter.
Another problem with the 1953 line was the frame. Studebaker engineered a high degree of flex into the frame. The idea was to allow the frame to “flex” with bumps, and absorb them before the driver and passenger felt them. Unfortunately, it resulted in two problems.
One, Studebaker hadn’t completely perfected this idea, so the cars ended up feeling creaky and junky. There was also a fair amount of noise generated by the flexing frame, which reached the interior.
The bigger problem surfaced as production of the cars began. The frames were so flexible, that when the engines were mounted in the Starlight/Starliner, the frames were distorted to the point that the front fenders didn’t mate properly to the rest of the body! This was another big reason for the production delays.
I remember reading that Robert Bourke had “priced out” a Studebaker Commander Starliner using GM’s cost structure. He discovered that GM could have sold it for LESS than the cost of a Chevrolet Bel Air. Studebaker, meanwhile, was charging close to Buick prices and still didn’t make much, if any, money on it.
The “Dead End” sign on the first photo is such an appropriate detail for this fantastic article!
I love all the coupes based off of this chassis. Let me place my fedora to my heart and bow my head for Studebaker.
Hey! The fedora is mine – you wear a cowboy hat, remember?
Man, that’s one beautiful car wherever one lives.
This…was a car in search of a market.
There wasn’t a MARKET for specialized cars in this era. Yes, the Corvette got in, and held its own; but even it had a struggle for years.
Why? Because our standard of living hadn’t risen to where two-car families were the norm; nor were there transportation alternatives for people with pretty-but-pretty-useless small coupes.
Consider today. A young guy, or girl, can buy a Corvette or Miata on an entry-level professional’s income. And, if he or she has the need to move something, he/she can rent a van or wagon or Budget truck.
In the day, that wasn’t doable. Your car…was your ONLY wheels. A sedan was needed if you wanted to travel with your friends. And even if that didn’t happen much, you had to think about resale. The market for such cars was very small, and even smaller used – when people drew status from the age of their cars.
And the playboy demographic was captured with British sports cars, or the Corvette. Or, for a few, the Thunderbird.
This was suicide. History shows it was the beginning of the end. And perhaps the styling didn’t set well…I know it’s not my favorite, other posters’ comments notwithstanding.
Nicely thought out. One of the biggest errors we tend to make on this site is to look at just about every car from a 2011/2012 vantage point, completely forgetting that back then people didn’t think in the ways that we do now.
To further elaborate, a ‘young guy or girl’ back then invariably ended up with something 5-10 years old. There was no way they could afford something nice, new and sporty.
For that matter, the concept of the ‘teenager’ – the idea that youth was different in style, thought and way of life was only beginning to come around in 1953. Up to that point (and for a while afterwards, in diminishing amounts) the person in their late teens or early twenties were nothing more than slightly junior versions of their parents.
And, the ‘playboy’ demographic (back then) was not necessarily something to be proud of . . . . . . .
Very true. Also note that young women weren’t major purchasers of cars back then. In the early 1950s, the main goal of most young (meaning, late teens and early 20s) women wasn’t getting a job to buy a spiffy new set of wheels. It was finding a husband and getting married.
Many women who went to college did so to find a better class of husband (as my wife’s grandmother put it, they were pursuing “the MRS degree”). I’m amazed at how many of my older female relatives who did pursue education after high school in the late 1940s and 1950s either dropped out after getting married (to a fellow classmate, who DID graduate with a degree), or graduated, immediately got married, and had children right away.
They weren’t looking at Studebaker Commander Starliners; they were looking at Ford Ranch Wagons or Country Squires.
The “youth market” as seen in 1955′s “Rebel Without a Cause”.
In line with your comment is the fact that Studebaker sold a disproportionate number of its cars in California back then. As now, the state was very fashion-forward, and postwar Studes (going back to the ’47 Starlight Coupe) were well received there. The salt-free climate probably did not hurt, either.
Studebaker had an L.A. Assembly facility and it was only reluctantly shut down around late ’55 when S-P as a whole, was really starting to go “up against it.”
Paul Hoffman, CEO was himself Los Angeles based and had not only California’s largest Studebaker dealer, but was himself a distributor.
Photographs of my parents dating in 1952-53 in San Francisco show lots of Studes on the streets (Mom had a ’47 HydraMatic Olds 76 back then).
When the standard of living in America started to rise in the mid-fifties, it was Ford who tried to captilize on this trend encouraging people to become “a two-Ford family” beginning in ’56.
I love that dead end sign…what a fitting metaphor! The Starliner was a beautiful automobile but Studebaker simply could not afford to build two seperate lines of automobiles. Studebaker had set up a production schedule of 350,000 units to be split 80% sedans, 20% coupes. When the Starliner was shown in October of 1952 they were quickly accepted by the public, but management at Studebaker had not scheduled any production of the coupes until 1953, and production was running 80% coupes, 20% sedans; just the opposite of what had been planned.
Ironically when Studebaker started production of the Avanti ten years later, it was haunted by many of the same production problems. Molded Fiberglas Company was supposed to supply complete trimmed bodies, but the pieces wouldn’t fit and Molded Fiberglas’s facilities were largely taken with Corvette work. Studebaker had to put in its own plant-delays mounted and many buyers who had lined up to purchase one went elsewhere.
When the halo car of most companies’ car lines in the early 1950′s was the new 2-door hardtop, Studebaker’s was still the long-wheelbase 4-door Land Cruiser sedan whose vent windows in the rear doors were the most noticeable difference from the ordinary sedans. They paid more attention to that car in their advertising than the unique Starlight coupe, and finally in 1952 there was a 2-door hardtop to sell besides the coupe.
In 1962 or so I found a 1953 Commander hardtop on the back row of a small used car lot in Tacoma. It was painted in 1956 Chevrolet beige and red-orange and was decent looking inside and out. The reason for its back-row status was that the engine was in pieces in the trunk. Well, a guy who worked for my father had a 1951 Land Cruiser that he was planning to sell, so I picked that up pretty cheap. Using a hydraulic backhoe for an engine hoist (the best ever, as you can wiggle the load from side to side as well as up and down), the 1951 engine and tranny got transferred into the 1953 car. The only difference between the two installations was that the shift linkage needed to be modified slightly. Everything else bolted up, even the wiring harnesses were the same, and I had the car driving in no time at all. But I was going to college at the time, money was tight, and the ’53 needed some exhaust work and other minor stuff, so I sold it. I probably didn’t put more than a couple of hundred miles on it.
One thing I like about the styling of those cars is that from most angles in the rear, you can see the reflection of the taillight on the trunk lid next to it. And one thing that I noticed about driving it was that if the car was light colored as mine was, light from the headlights would be refracted upward from the surface of the body in front of the light – not strongly, but enough to be noticeable.
I ended up with an extra set of those cool-looking wheel covers, that I used on half a dozen other cars in the subsequent years, none of them a Studebaker.
I walked by this exact car last summer and thought of CC immediately, of course. Had my camera one me but the sun was nearly down and I couldn’t have done her justice. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. Paul gets around.
I drive by it when I take the long way home, it’s been there off and on for years. Happened to mention it to Paul (before I started writing here) and he got these outstanding photos when he came up for the art museum car exhibit. Funny, I always go by this car downhill, never noticed the “Dead End” sign which faces the other way. Paul sees these things.
…First Star I See Tonight.
Fabulous story Paul, nicely done. Bob Marcks’ sedan is gorgeous. If only…
“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” Soren Kierkegaard (1813 – 1855)
The ’53 Starlight Coupe is my all-time favorite old car, I’m just crazy about these cars. It’s always a thrill to see one. But bittersweet, its story is so sad. By ’55 it was ruined.
I once stumbled into a ’53 coupe in modern custom form: completely dechromed, nicely styled bodywork where the bumpers used to be, slightly lowered, fabulous paint. It looked totally modern. Stunning. Wish I could find a photo. It might have been the one shown here, but the one I remember is even sleeker.
Here’s a more elaborate custom ’53 that’s true to the original:
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/features/1106phr_1953_studebaker_coupe/viewall.html
Its shape was so perfect.
Carnut has a big page chock full of ’53 Studes, custom and stock:
http://www.carnut.com/photo/list/stude/stude53.html
Marcks’ idea of a four-door version is interesting, but I suspect that it would have flopped. The lack of a step-down chassis meant that the Starliner body was terribly cramped, both in the rear seat and the trunk. The 1951 Kaiser — which may have been a partial inspiration for the Starliner — partially solved the rear-seat-room problem by raising the roofline, but that destroyed the car’s low-slung looks. On the other hand, imagine if Hudson had decided to invest in an updated and much-lower Hornet body instead of the Jet.
It sounds boring, but if Studebaker had any hope it would have been to ditch the Starliner proposal in favor of an updated and unit-body Champion, which had always been a solid seller. AMC effectively stole the mid-sized sedan market with the 1956 Rambler, which was the backbone of AMC’s remarkable success through the early-60s.
A halo car could have worked in the 1950s. That’s essentially what the original Nash Rambler was — and it sold reasonably well. The problem is if the car’s success hinges largely on fresh styling. There’s no way that an independent automaker could have kept pace with the Big Three’s rapid restylings.
That’s one reason why the Rambler aged better from a sales standpoint than the Starliner. Over time Nash moved the Rambler more toward a utility-oriented and low-cost compact.
My first thought: Amazing that the same company took the risk to build both this car and the Avanti.
My second thought: Only this company had to take the risk to build both this car and the Avanti.
I love Studebakers, if not for anything, but their underdog status. It is sad that the inept corporate leadership, accounting and then renegade South Bend UAW dragged down Packard after the S-P merge (nobody bothered to look at the South Bend books BEFORE the merge!).
I don’t know if I would call the South Bend local a “renegade” unit. Supposedly management simply gave it whatever it wanted. Studebaker management prided itself on operating America’s “Friendliest Factory.”
Given that almost everyone – management and labor – working at Studebaker in the early 1950s was either an adult or a teenager during the bitter sitdown strikes at GM and the bloody “Battle of the Overpass” at Ford, that wasn’t necessarily a meaningless boast.
I remember a quote from a union official who later said he couldn’t believe that Studebaker management give in so easily to union demands.
When the union official thinks management should have said, “No,” that should tell you something!
Another version of a shortened Studebaker coupe…
http://www.sunbeam.org.au/models/rapier3.jpg
One of my Minxes sporting relatives
The ’53-’54 Studebaker Starliner is ‘the’ car that one of the domestics needs to produce in a modern, retro version. It’s such a beautiful, timeless, classic design and it would be great to see one without all of the issues that the original and could be used as safe, reliable, daily transportation.
Gosh that’s an interesting idea. It’s not too hard to see a modern Starliner in some of the better customs.
When did Toyota start importing its Land Cruisers into the US? (fairly early in its US history, IIRC) Was Studebaker already too weak by then to contest the trademark?
Hard to say when Toyota started using the “Land Cruiser” name. I am sure after Studebaker’s use of that name, certainly after ’52. In ’54-’56, DeSoto two door hardtops were “Sevilles” to denote the city that Hernando DeSoto started his new world expeditions from; Cadillac began using “Seville” to denote the hardtop version of the Eldorado in ’55 through, I believe ’58. Not sure if Chrysler protested of GM’s use of the Seville name or not.
Drool(:D
I had always thought that the Starliner coupe resembled the 2nd generation Camaro. Especially the 75 and up with the wrap around rear window. I’d like to see what the Studebaker would look like with rear side window removed.
I own a ’54 Starlight coupe and it is one hot looking car.I live in Ontario,Canada and in almost all car shows I participate in,my Stude takes a prize.People rave about the styling and many have said it looks better than current cars and say it should be made again,long live Studebaker!
> it should be made again,long live Studebaker!
As a fellow Studebaker enthusiast, be careful what you wish for! Some things are better left in the past, or else we have this:
http://www.studebakermotorcompany.com
Could you put a photo of it up?
As the owner of a ’54 Starliner when I was very young in the late 1950s, I read your page with great interest. Attached is/was my car with a descriptive caption. Please use the photo as you see fit.
Don Struke (in Baltimore)