Back in the 1960s, car manufacturers were more tractable about bending the rules to make a sale; therefore, the words “always” or “never” should never (oops) enter our vocabulary when we’re discussing cars. Special order colors were not terribly uncommon, but in the case of this uncommon 1965 Studebaker Daytona, I was disappointed by the (probable) truth. But we should never say never, right?
While I took the pictures of the featured Daytona back in 2014, I recently looked at them with a more curious eye. Was it painted a one-year-only Flamingo, a color seen on the very nice 1961 Hawk above? The Studebaker National Museum in South Bend also has a Flamingo-painted Hawk, so I’ve seen the color before.
Studebaker didn’t offer the wide variety of colors that the big three did in the sixties, which is unsurprising, but the colors they offered, at least in 1961, gave buyers some pleasing choices (Riviera Blue for me, please).
Studebaker didn’t offer anything resembling Flamingo in 1965, as they began to wind down their automotive operations. Furthermore, the Daytona is clearly an original-paint car, as the dealer sticker for “Model City Studebaker-Fiat” in Kingsport, Tennessee (yikes, what a combination), is still visible on the trunk lid.
The color that comes closest to matching the handsome white-topped Daytona on the 1965 color chart was Sienna Red, and that isn’t even in the same county as the pinkish Studebaker in my photograph. Could this be the case of a special order color? Could a Studebaker lifer have walked into Model City Studebaker-Fiat in 1965 and said, “I want my new Studebaker to be painted Flamingo. Whatever it costs, whatever it takes!”
Unfortunately, probably not. This picture of a Sienna Red Daytona, which sold online in 2015, shows us that Sienna Red simply fades to a color that looks an awful lot like Flamingo Pink. It’s always a shame to be disappointed by the mundane, isn’t it?
That’s not to detract from the fact that our example is still a very nice Studebaker, even if its original paint was…sigh…a standard Studebaker color in 1965. It looks great with its white top, and it has a V8 under the hood, so it will be a powerful, practical, and even an economical collector car.
That’s because, as all the Studebaker fanatics know, the 1965 Daytona used a Chevy 283…ahem, Studebaker Thunderbolt 283 (manufactured by McKinnon Industries) that produced 195 horsepower, the same as the 283 Impala in your neighbor’s driveway. While we could argue the relative merits of the Studebaker V8 all day, the truth remains that finding parts for a Chevy small-block is cheaper and easier, even if having one under your Studebaker’s hood feels a bit heretical.
Due to the South Bend exodus and the subsequent cancellation of Studebaker’s in-house V8, it must have been clear to any new Studebaker owner in 1965 that their cars were soon to be added to a long list of orphaned nameplates; thus, there were few Studebaker buyers in 1965: model year production was down to a mere 19,435. Of those, only 1,626 were Daytona Sports Sedans. How many of those still exist, wearing their original paint? A dozen or two?
This one’s interior is immaculate; the steering wheel is uncracked, the dashboard unblemished. I wish I would have taken better pictures of the interior, but the lack of a steering-column-mounted bezel suggests that this car has a three-speed manual; overdrive and Studebaker’s “hill holder” were options. A 283 three-speed with overdrive? That combination might make for the greatest 1960s highway cruising combination of all; I can imagine that 20 miles per gallon would be well within reach, even at a 75 mile-per-hour pace. Additionally, the Daytona’s trim size and relatively light weight make it a worthy companion for long trips.
Because this Daytona is in such wonderful original condition, it’s hard to be too disappointed that it’s not a unicorn painted “Flamingo” (although the letdown does remind me of this CNN article from 2019 that made its rounds as a meme). If it’s simply Sierra Red faded to pink, so be it; I’m just glad that, as of 2014 at least, someone was still enjoying it as it was designed to be enjoyed.
Related Reading
Automotive History: The Studebaker V8 Engine – Punching Below Its Weight (by Paul N.)
Sienna Red can indeed fade to a chalky shade of pink. I have seen a few in that state. Interestingly, the 1961 color, Flamingo was initially only offered on Hawks and Lark convertibles. Many Lark sedan and hardtop buyers must have wanted Flamingo as a Sales Letter, dated November 1960 stated it would be available on ‘all models and body styles’ although I have yet to see a 1961 Champ truck factory-painted Flamingo.
I live in Kingsport Tennessee. Grew up in and around this area. I know where that Studebaker dealership was. Kinda cool
Kingsport, TN is kind of in the middle of nowhere, near the VA state line. I have to imagine that selling EOL Studebaker and fledgling (in the US) FIAT was a tough way to make a living in the rural South in 1965.
Kingsport is near the Bristol NASCAR track so back in 1965 was plenty of traffic though here then.
I used to live in Kingsport. It has a huge chemical works, Tennessee Eastman. It’s one of what are called the Tri-Cities (the others being Johnson City and Bristol) that collectively have the population to support oddball import dealers selling Fiat, at least as a sideline, and probably about as long as any Fiat dealer lasted in the Sixties. Heck, I later bought my Peugeot in Johnson City. 🙂
I have long tried to decide what my ideal cheap Studebaker would be, and one like this could be in the running. Although I detest red paint (especially the kind that fades and chalks to pink) the interior and the 3 speed/OD could sway me. Actually, I might even prefer my 65-66 Stude with that excellent Chevy 6, probably the most satisfying 6 cylinder Stude of the 60s. Nice find!
I find the lack of metallic colors from 1959-61 an interesting design choice. Studebaker’s colors of that time remind me of imports of the era.
That is lovely, the 65 is my preferred Studebaker, being like me birthed in Hamilton, having the Canadian made 283 and the most attractive front end treatment.
Sure is in great original condition, the typical front fender rust is absent. If I manage to do the Aaron65 thing in retirement one of these would be in my top 5 for sure!
A clean Daytona has to be one of the more inexpensive collector cars right now, just saying. 🙂
The faded-to-pink color is not unpleasing, at least.
I live in Kingsport Tennessee. Grew up in and around this area. I know where that Studebaker dealership was. Kinda cool
I vividly remember some friends in Iowa City with a Lark sedan in what looks like Flamingo. Was it a 1961-only color, or also available in 1960, and 1959?
20 mpg at 75 mph? Hmm. That might be a bit optimistic, given the aerodynamics of these cars back then. At 65 mph it might be doable; there’s a shocking amount of difference in aero drag between 65 and 75. 65 mph has only 75% of the drag of 75 mph. But in any case, it is definitely a fine combination, of the 283 and 3-speed with OD.
I estimated 20 miles per gallon based on my experiences with my small-V8-powered cars in the fleet. I’ve approached 20 miles per gallon at 75 in my 289 Mustang (which certainly has a smaller frontal area), but my Skylark gets 17-18, and it’s a little bigger (and it doesn’t have overdrive, although it does have a tall 2.78:1 rear axle ratio).
That’s pretty good for 75 mph.
Studebaker changed almost every color every year during that period. There were some similar lighter pinks in other years, but Flamingo was a 61-only offering.
The ’61 I shot and did a CC on years ago must be that Flamingo Pink:
1960 never offered any shade of pink, but for 1959, Studebaker offered Tahiti Coral, a lighter shade of 1961 Flamingo.
Was there any difference between McKinnon engines and Chevy engines other than where they were made and who made them?
Two other markers of Hamilton-built cars include all-white steering wheel rims (South Bend cars had partially color-keyed rims alternating with white) and the dial on the right (if not filled by a tach or clock) read “Studebaker of Canada” rather than “Studebaker Corporation”. But this one appears to say Studebaker Corporation so I’m confused.
I take it any small-block Chevy engine could be easily swapped into this car; it would be fun having a 327 or 350.There were still some good reasons to choose a Studebaker over a Chevy II/Nova in 1965 despite the shared engine and older body. You could get a Borg-Warner 3-speed auto instead of a Powerglide 2-speed, along with front disk brakes instead of four-wheel drums. And the Stude interior and dash was quite a bit nicer.
Here’s a discussion on the HAMB: https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/studebaker-thunderbolt-283.579785/
It looks like the consensus is that there were no differences whatsoever.
Looks to be a sturdy, survivor. That color is isn’t working for it though. Bet it still runs quiet.
I have long heard the story that the McKinnon engines were slightly different than a Chevy 283 and they were from the Canadian Pontiac line. Don’t know if that can be verified.
They were made by McKinnon but strictly to the same specs as US-built 283s. Yes, Canadian Pontiacs used Chevrolet engines, transmissions, shorter Chevrolet wheelbase with Chevy chassis components. That’s why they are called Cheviacs.
I wonder if Model City was able to sell the car’s first owner a Fiat 124 when he came back for a trade-in in about 1968?
We had a red Vauxhall Astra for a couple of years about fifteen years ago. For whatever reason the colour seemed particularly suceptible to sun damage. We called the car Fifty Shades of Red.
Very nice survivor .
In 1968 one of the screws had a clean ’65 Daytona, I got to ride in it a few times, he said “I picked this cream puff up for a song because no one wants Studebakers any more ” .
I like the styling then and today .
-Nate
I think I would prefer one of these over an early Valiant or Falcon, the separate frame and little 283 is appealing, not to mention what looks like a nice interior.