I’m a bigger fan of the quad-headlamp ’64-’65 Studebaker front end; this ’66 configuration seems a big downscale skid towards the generic. And…so what? Look, look; a Studebaker! A Wagonaire!
This one appears to be doing station wagon duty—regular non-collector licence plate and all; viz the kiddo being transferred from the one wheeled conveyance to the other.
As far as I know, the Wagonaire was the last car built like this until the GMC Envoy multiple decades later.
I agree with the front end. I have owned a 1964 Daytona Hardtop and two 1966’s. While I do like the ’66 being the last, and very low production, the ’64-65 detail styling is richer IMHO. As with most subsequent model years of most cars, the ’66 was changed just to be able to say it was changed.
The car you photographed appears to have the 1964-only Daytona Wagonaire upholstery and has the 1964-65 full wheel covers.
In Wagonaires, IMHO, the 1965 has the best interior–the vinyl bench seat also used in Cruiser sedans.
I bet it was hard to sell Canadian-built Studebakers in South Bend after the shutdown, although with administration and parts still being located there, Studebaker was still doing more in the community than the Big Three or any import.
The ’66 grille looks better on the higher-end models where most of it is blacked out leaving just the four chrome rectangles as the main visual element.
Yeah, that sounds like an improvement. Still, though, the trapezoidal grille on the ’64-‘5 just sends me.
Excellent find. Perhaps worse than the headlight layout, are those super-econo taillights (and reverse lights). They especially scream low budget, particularly with all that available vertical sheetmetal below. They could have used for a more stylized and appealing rear lighting treatment. What they went with looks something they perhaps picked up at the newly opened original Home Hardware in St.Jacobs, Ontario. Only 53 minutes away from Hamilton. Just sayin’. I always laugh at how car makers made little attempt to hide body hardware fasteners for decades.
Wonder if children’s blowing long hair would get caught in the sliding roof’s hardware? Guess the roof would be too high, if they were seated.
Interestingly, the Studebaker isn’t the only rare car in the second pic. The New Beetle and Chrysler Dynasty have virtually disappeared here in Ottawa. While the remaining ’90s Corolla’s are bruised and battered. Anecdotally speaking, the first gen Toyota Matrix is perhaps the most rugged and long-lived of any car, in this area.
I agree with you: those taillights are too small and dim—the same criticism applies to the taillights on the Avanti. And even if they weren’t too small and too dim, their design is awkward; I have to really look hard and closely at the pic in this post to be sure that right one isn’t installed crooked. It’s not, but it looks like it is!
Vertical taillights might’ve been nicer on this car—bigger ones, broadly along the lines of the ’64 and ’66 Valiant wagon or the Jeepster.
…and now I think about it more: if these Wagonaire taillights were on a car from about 1954, I’d be on much thinner ground griping about their design/appearance or function.
Personally, I think the high-mounted, wraparound taillights were a nod to the future.
I loved how plucky Studebaker was, especially in the ’62-66 period. No one in my family ever had one, or would have, but I’ve owned four in the ’63-66 range. All roomy inside, reasonably-sized outside, and styling which I think has stood the test of time better than contemporary Chevy II’s, Falcons, and Valiants which of course were produced in multitudes more. My favorite Lark-type is a ’64 Daytona Hardtop, available with supercharger and disc brakes, or a ’63 Cruiser, M-B styling touches, rear door cutout a la ’75 Seville and ’77 GM big sedans, and available broadcloth interior and sunroof.
The wraparound portion might or might not light up, depending on the reflector configuration and bulb placement. The taillights on yesterday’s Caprice wagon in Japan have wraparound lenses, too, but the side-facing portion doesn’t light up. Same with the export versions of the ’84-’96 and ’97-’01 Jeep Cherokee: plenty of wraparound lens area, all of it dark even with the bulb on.
I will confess to being a Hoosier Homer and preferring the ones built in South Bend (or at least with the hoary old Stude V8s) but I can see the attraction of the GM powered versions for practical drivers with wider parts availability. The lineup of body styles was severely truncated with the closing of South Bend, but this was the one interesting style that was retained.
The detail I notice is that the hood ornament appears to have snapped off somewhere along the line. I loved that lazy-S-in-a-circle design.
That looks like a mighty fun errand-runner.
Yeah, I prefer the South Bend-built cars myself, really. A lot of unique options and engines and models went away when production was centralized in Hamilton in Jan. 1964. I’ve read that the board wanted dealers to quit, as lawsuits from remaining dealers would be fewer. They went from 1,915 U.S. dealers at the time of South Bend’s closing to 450 at the time Hamilton closed in March ’66, I’ve read. So it appears the minimizing of the product line worked in that regard, sigh.
The hood ornament was also the only place on the car where the new-for-1962 logo lettering was used, with a strikingly modern-looking font that still looks contemporary today. The larger badges on the cars spelling out either “Studebaker” or the model name remained stuck in a ’50s-looking style which detracted from otherwise good efforts (mostly by Brooks Stevens) to bring the car’s 1953-vintage bodies inline with ’60s styling trends.
pic:
Yeah, the Falcon and Dart front ends also got rather generic looking around that time.
Incidentally, before the GMC Envoy was released, a fellow I know at the Studebaker National Museum reported that GM had requested Wagonaire blueprints. Fact.
The early “concept” version of the Honda Element shown at car shows also had a Wagonaire-style retracting roof, although the production version didn’t have this feature. Don’t know if Honda got the idea from Studebaker or thought of it themselves. I recall it predated the GMC Envoy with the retracting roof being shown.
A story wherein a company on its last financial legs spends precious remaining capital designing and engineering a solution to a problem nobody had, in hopes of saving the company. Best information I can find is that Stude sold ~20k units over 4 years of production.
It provided employment to people making replacement sunroof seals because, inevitably, it leaked.
Wonderful, to see it still being used as a kiddie hauler, and with the “sunroof” fully opened too.
The Mennonite family that I used to stay with in the summers near Iowa City bought their farm from an old retired bachelor Mennonite, and the deal was that he got to keep living there in two of the rooms of the big farmhouse and to have (noon) dinner with them every day. He bought a ’65 Studebaker sedan, and I was surprised to see the Chevy six under the hood. He was probably a representative demographic for Studebaker in its final years.
Abner was an early health food fanatic, and ground fresh wheat kernels to make his own whole wheat bread. He always brought a slice of it to dinner as he would not touch the puffy white bread the Mrs. Yoder baked.
Wow, had no idea the Wagonaire lasted to the bitter end. With the low take-rate (even for a Studebaker), I would have thought it would have already been axed and never would have continued production in Hamilton.
But, then, it’s Studebaker. I’m going to guess since they didn’t sell many, they had plenty of extra parts to keep building them until supply ran out.
My uncle had one. He ordered a South Bend Wagonaire but finally received a Hamilton-built car. The unique roof appealed to him but I don’t think he used it much.
Studebaker unfortunately dropped the rear-facing third row seat option in the Wagonaire on the 1966 models, eliminating the open-air seating option with the roof retracted and the rear window rolled down. Of course back then it was common for kids to ride in the “way back” station wagons sitting on the floor if the car didn’t have seats back there, though I’m guessing some parents even back then would be leery of having kids ride back there with the roof and rear window open for fear of them falling out. The 3-row Wagonaires didn’t have room for a spare tire, so run-flat tires were included. These weren’t made like modern run-flats with strong sidewalls that could temporarily support the weight of the car; rather they had a small inner tube of sorts that remained inflated if the main tire got a flat. There were separate valve stems for the inner and outer air bladders, with the inner one resembling those on bicycle tires.
Thanks for that detail re. the runflats. I had no idea that such a thing existed.
See my comment below this one for the first “Captive-Air” iteration; by 1965, Goodyear had changed the name to LifeGuard Safety Spare, and were advertising them this way (cringe):
Yikes. I have an xgf that with her half-brother helped rebuild the engine in her ’62 GT Hawk (which she unfortunately sold before we met); I’m pretty sure she could change a tire, despite having two X chromosomes.
I think they were these:
GoodYear called them Captive-Air tires; donno if other makers offered them as well. They were standard equipment on the ’60-’61 Valiant-Lancer 3-seat wagons, too, for the same reason. Here’s an ad; now, is she X’d out because, like, “She won’t have to do like this any more if you get these tires”? Or because she’s about to be ended by an oncoming car?
We both posted that same ad at almost the same time… they did a few updates of that same basic ad with newer cars over a few years. That soft gravelly surface not very stable surface for a jack.
I came across this Goodyear ad while looking for the Captive-Air promo. It’s difficult to imagine today in the age of monster-sized wheels that there was once a time when it was trendy to replace your 15 inch wheels and tires with even smaller 14 inch ones:
Looks like there are tons of great pics on a thread at forwardlook.net, but the site appears to be down at the moment.
It’s up now. Here’s the thread:
http://www.forwardlook.net/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=55714
I had it backwards – the normal valve stem inflates the inner section, and the one that requires a needle you normally use to inflate a football inflates the outer section. These were apparently a nuisance to mount and dismount on wheels, and some people unknowingly drove around on fully-inflated outer sections but underinflated inner sections. The Lifeguard Safety Spare design started to replace the Captive-Air around 1963 and still used an inner-tire concept, but the inner liner was now larger and stronger, and both parts were inflated by a single valve stem in the normal fashion. These made a thumping noise if the inflation was low to alert drivers to low tire pressure (TPMS sensors had to wait another four decades or so). But these tires were also discontinued after a few years. What did people who bought late-’50s and early-’60s 3-seat wagons do when they needed new tires circa 1970 when they weren’t making run-flats of any type anymore? Carry a loose spare in the back seat or on the roof rack?
Donno how Studebaker owners handled it, but here’s a Valiant TSB on the subject; page 1:
…page 2…
…page 3…
…and page 4:
I’m surprised there’s any room underneath the 3rd row seat for a tire. In just about every wagon I’ve seen with 3rd row seating, whether it be forward, rearward, or twin sideways, the third row seat(s) took up pretty much the underfloor cargo space that the 2-row wagon would have had, save for the footwell.
Having never owned a car factory-equipped with run-flats (or a recent car with just a spray can of hole-plugging goop instead of a spare), it never even occurred to me these cars may not have a jack either. Not having one in my car wouldn’t feel right, even if I knew I didn’t have a spare tire with me. That’s just basic safety equipment a car should have IMO. If I did own a non-spare equipped car, I’d want a spare tire (preferably a full-size one) that I could leave at home and have someone bring me in an emergency. For long trips, I’d pack the spare in the luggage.
“Valiant three seat Suburbans” sounds really weird in 2022…
One thing bugging me about this p’ticular Wagonaire is its rear-dump tailpipe. I don’t know for sure about Studebaker, but most wagons had side-dump tailpipes because the boxy shape of the wagon body creates a low-pressure area immediately behind, pulling along a cloud of exhaust from a rear-dump tailspout. Seems like that would be aggravated with the Wagonaire’s wayback roof open.
I’ll put the elimination of the Wagonaire’s rear-facing seat for its final production year in the same category as the car, itself. Studebaker was winding down its operations and was offering cars and options for whatever remaining parts inventories they still had on hand.
IOW, they simply ran out of the parts for the rear facing rear seat.
There’s a theory floating around the ‘net that the Hamilton plant abruptly ended new car production on 17 March 1966 because the deck lid stamping dies wore out and the company didn’t want to pay to replace it. I haven’t seen any hard evidence of this, but NOS trunk lids for ’64-’66 cars have apparently be unobtainium for decades, whereas every other body part is still readily available.
I have also heard that for years.
It was said that the Hamilton plant could break even on low production. By ’66 Studebaker’s management had decided to exit the vehicle business, though. The company had diversified into non-automotive businesses since the beginning of the 60’s.
There were also safety and emissions regulations coming in ’67 and ’68 that would have been prohibitively costly to meet. They were also paying too much for the Canadian-built Chevrolet engines.
Love this! For some reason, I’m not a Studebaker guy…I guess I just never saw many as a youth, and by the time I started to really notice cars there was mostly only the Avanti, which never did much for me. But I have to say that the Wagonaire is totally fascinating to me. I so so so love that roof.
If for no other reason, than for the ability to carry a refrigerator upright. In a wagon. What could be better? Not much, IMO.
(this photo from CC last year)
I would so totally buy one of these if the opportunity presented.
I’ve had the same refrigerator for 30 years. It might outlive me. If it doesn’t, I’ll gladly pay the delivery fee on a new one. They bring in the new one. They take out the old one. Very nice. The Studebaker sliding roof wagon was a nifty idea but it’s kind of like buying a cement truck in case you want to pour some cement.
Exactly. The problem with buying a Wagonaire to transport a refrigerator (really, any major home appliance) is how often does one need to do that? A once (maybe twice) in a lifetime event doesn’t seem to justify the purchase (especially of an early sixties’ Studebaker).
OTOH, I can actually see the appeal for a small town home appliance store. That’s where a Wagonaire might come into it’s own as an alternative to having a a big box truck for business deliveries.
But it does bring up another point: how beefed up was the Wagonaire’s rear suspension? Would it be enough for actual sustained commercial use? Somehow, I suspect that routine use of the Wagonaire’s sliding roof to carry heavy loads would soon make short work of the rear suspension.
How about the annual Christmas tree, or more quotidian nursery items?
Plank lumber that won’t fit inside?
Protestors, standing up with bullhorns?
Politicians and candidates taking the word to the people?
Militia members who wish to project a military-like image but lack the means for more substantial vehicles, and appreciate the ability to close the top and go incognito?
And, given the relative disregard (or, more charitably, ignorance) of personal safety as it pertained to vehicles back then, it might have made the car attractive to teen boys for turning donuts while friends stood up in the wayback and held on for dear life.
Perhaps they had a great idea, but just didn’t fully inform people of the possibilities.
How silly of me for not thinking of such obvious possibilities. It would also be great for transporting bird baths full of water and birds.
The Mayor of my city had a ’63 that he used to launch his boat with. I think it was the same blue as the one in Jeff’s photo. Great job on a limited budget. Aren’t these the best tail lights ever?
Not in my book, they aren’t. More details further up the comment thread.
Like the high up mounting. Don’t recall if the sides lit though.
Saw some photos of the reflector and lens on Ebay, looks light the sides do light from the posting.
I’m seeing two lenses for sale right now on eBay. Nothing in any of the pics answers yes/no on this question, to my eye; what do you see?
Sorry, I’m not able to post the pics. Bulb faces rearward at an angle. Seems that some of the light will go off to the side. The mounting location looks to be most appropriate, especially for a wagon pulling something like a boat trailer. Great post, by the way.
Oh, I saw only two lenses on eBay; didn’t see any complete tails. What you describe sounds plausible, and the pic Jeff Sun posted (blue wagon, rear corner view) strongly suggests these taillights were visible out to a pretty wide lateral angle, yup.
Matchbox did a version, complete with sliding roof, although the front was a 1965.
I remember those Matchbox Wagonaires. In fact, this seems like a very narrow market for which the car might appeal, i.e., hunters with dogs. The owner could transport his dogs in the back with the tailgate window up and the roof open.
That’s close to where I lived in 1985! Commercial Dr./Grant. I lived on 3rd ave/Commercial. It was an interesting part of town but in 1986 I moved down by Denman/Davie st. for Expo! World class view of English Bay from my window! (16th floor). BTW, the CAR is cool too! lol
Thanks for the contribution, Daniel. It’s great to see such an uncommon car in such apparent great shape, and still in service to a family.
Not very related, but I thought of you earlier today when, searching idly through Facebook, I found a 225 slant 6 for sale, seemingly rebuilt and looking for a job.
1964 Studebaker Wagonaire used by news crew at KAUZ-TV in Wichita Falls, TX to film aftermath of devastating tornado that left 7 dead and hundreds injured on April 3, 1964.
Clearer picture of above image.