The Gran Turismo Hawk could only have come from Studebaker. Obviously, doh! Who else could—or would—take a ten year-old coupe and freshen it up for a song and manage to make it (somewhat) relevant, in that rapidly changing time? The plucky little South Bend company had no choice but to focus its very limited resources ever since its 1953 line stumbled badly off the line. The 1953 coupe had some compelling features, and morphed into the Hawk, an outsider’s road car in a niche of its own, even if it looked perpetually out of date.
Thanks to a very effective budget make-over by Brooks Stevens, the GT Hawk suddenly looked a lot less…odd, and from some angles, thanks to its new Thunderbird roof, it might be seen as a genuine Thunderbird competitor—just don’t look too closely, as its 1953 body with its long and narrow proportions and out of date cowl and windshield were still all-too obvious.
So much for my preamble: Car Life tested the new GT Hawk and noted many of its positive features as well as one big negative: ineffective brakes.
Car Life pointed out the biggest issue with the GT right up front: In a brake test from 80 mph, fade was so bad that all braking force ended at about 20 mph; they had to coast to a stop (this was on the first attempt; normally CL did two back-to-back stops from 80) . CL assumed that the test car might have been a bit worse than average, but “Still, we can’t justify any car losing its brakes so thoroughly during a single fast stop.”And the brakes on the GT had finned drums, unlike the Lark’s. No wonder Studebaker offered optional disc front brakes across the line in 1963 (they were standard on the Avanti).
But other than that CL states “it’s very much the kind of car we’d be happy to own”.
CL points out that the restyle of the ’53 coupe body “drew compliments”. The new squared off roof “looks pure Thunderbird to us”. Obviously, the front end can’t fully hide its origins, but then retro styling with classic grilles was just starting to come back into vogue. There’s a healthy mixture of both here.
“The interior is just as handsome as the exterior…for the man who enjoys driving, the Hawk has one of the most attractive and functional cockpits of any automobile built in this country”. This included the legible full set of instruments as well as the ideal placement of the steering wheel and even the “careful arrangement of the brake and accelerator pedals to permit heel and toeing.”
The bucket seats had a wide range of adjustment and both short and tall driver could feel well accommodated. There’s genuine beauty in details like this, unlike the more cosmetic stuff offered by the Big Three. This is precisely what made Studebakers compelling to those relatively few—and decreasing numbers—who could appreciated these features.
Of course there were limitations to this approach; a look at the GT’s inside door trim, for example: it’s really showing its 1953 origins. Not exactly “pure Thunderbird”.
And where did those wheel covers come from? Not exactly very “gran turismo”.
The tested GT Hawk came with the most powerful engine available that year, the four barrel 225 hp version of the 289 V8. In 1963, the “R” higher output versions would be available, but for 1962, 225 hp was pretty modest for a car with gran turismo ambitions. In 1963, the 240 hp R1 and the supercharged 280 hp R2 were also available.
I hate to be a downer, but in reading a lot of these old Car Lifes, apparently the Paxton supercharger tended to have a rather short life, as in some 30,000 miles before the expensive bearings tended to go out. And if it wasn’t maintained meticulously, it could well be sooner. There was a very good reason the manufacturers stayed away from these, except when they essentially had no choice, like the ’57 Ford 312 (to stay competitive with the Chevy 283) and of course Studebaker, to compensate for the intrinsic power limitations in the Studebaker V8. Everyone else found it cheaper and more effective to just increase displacement and/or improve the breathing of their V8s.
The 289 was backed by the Borg-Warner T-10 4-speed transmission that was originally developed for the ’57 Corvette and was now becoming available on other brands too. CL noted that “because the Hawk is something of an enthusiast’s car, the optional 4-speed gearbox would seem an appropriate choice. Actually, this particular installation is more for fun than function, The Studebaker engine is flexible enough that it doesn’t need 4 closely-grouped gears. In traffic, we sometimes found ourselves shifting from 1st to 4th, skipping the intermediate ranges”. Once again, this confirms what I’ve been thinking and saying more and more: a 4-speed behind such a low-rev torquey V8, is pure overkill.
And once again, CL suggests that the 3-speed with overdrive “strikes us the most practical of all for the Hawk..It provides the broadest range of gearing, allowing the use of a strong rear axle ratio without sacrificing highway economy.”
As to how the GT Hawk performed in acceleration tests, it was somewhat modest: 0-60 in 11.4 seconds; the 1/4 mile in 17.2 seconds @75 mph. As a frame of comparison, the ’56 Chevy with a 205 hp 265 V8 and 3-speed transmission CL tested did the 0-60 in 2.5 seconds quicker, in 9.0 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 16.6 @ 81 mph. Its tested weight (3725 lbs) was very close to that of the Hawk (3835 lbs). In more than one article, CL expresses its strong feelings that the Chevy V8 put out more real and usable horsepower than it was advertising.
I’ll say it, despite the inevitable blowback: this car would have really shined with a 300 or 340 hp 327 Chevy under the hood. And some decent brakes, of course.
Given its performance, it’s not like the GT Hawk was likely to end up at the drag strip or be engaged in red-light drags. Its forte was the open road, and its handling was more commensurate to that than its all-out performance. But even there, CL notes that “Beyond 70 mph, the floating tendencies become a little discomfiting”. But “Cornering ability is surprisingly good, considering the car’s front-end weight bias and 120.5″ wheelbase…the nose plows somewhat in tight turns but body sway is moderate.”
CL ends by saying that the GT Hawk isn’t as exciting as many of the new high-performance muscle cars then available, but that “it’s a companionable sort of car that doesn’t require much effort in traffic yet responds to considerable driving verve on the open road”. In other words, it doesn’t quite live up to its name, but it had its charms for those 8,388 buyers that found it compelling enough to buy one in 1962, its best year by far.
(Note: color images from the web)
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1962 Studebaker Gran Turismo Hawk – Irrational Exuberance by JP Cavanaugh
Curbside Classic: 1962 Studebaker Gran Turismo Hawk – A Beautiful Death by PN
Automotive History: The Studebaker V8 Engine – Punching Below Its Weight
Well, Australians were offered, (in very limited numbers) an export right hand drive version of this Studebaker Hawk. It was marketed as an expensive high end luxury coupe and one of the very few pillarless hardtops available in Australia during the 1960s.
Consequently, a 1962 -1964 RHD Studebaker Hawk was, for Australians a seriously high end car and its owners probably ended up trading them after a 2 or 3 year ownership, on one of the small number of Buick Rivieras that came to Australia as new cars.
Above all, I am always impressed by what Studebaker achieved with so little money. Lovely car in every respect.
These came out when I was 12. Two houses up the street, Mr. Taddeo had a black one with a red interior. I was enthralled with the Thunderbird touches and the chrome accents along the tops of the fenders and the wheel wells. It was just such a classy car!
Unfortunately, my only experience with driving in that body I was in the ’90s, when my dad and I went to look at a 5-window ’54 coupe. It was yellow and a bit worse for wear. By modern standards, it was a truck. I recall the clutch and brake pedals were not suspended, which gave it a very old feel and it had the flathead six. It was just ungainly.
Being born a decade and a half after the last Hawk was produced, I never saw the stigma attached to a car that had lived long enough that it had to sprout tailfins, grow them taller, then lose them in an attempt to keep up with the quickly changing styling of the day… produced by a Studebaker that was slowly imploding over the same time period. So with all of that removed, I actually thought these were a fairly special car and was always wowed at the rare sighting of one. And with the slightly more frequent sighting of the audaciously styled bullet nose, the rarer spotting of an Avanti… I grew up believing that Studebakers were a choice for the discriminating few. And some of that magic rubbed off onto Larks as well; a kid who was a year of so older than me in high school drove a V8 Lark, which seemed like it was able to spank most of the “high schooler quality” 1970’s or 80’s cars most of us had access to.
Now that I’ve grown (a bit) and have spent (far too) much of my time around, in, under, or studying vintage cars- I can better see where Studebaker actually stood in relation to other cars of the time period. They were screwed and fighting a losing battle, but there were still some compelling products and even a few options that were ahead of the curve in their dealerships; few noticed or cared.
I’m kind of surprised that the brakes faded to oblivion on the test car; brakes on 1954-up V8 Studebakers are pretty good for the era. My similarly equipped 1962 Lark (same brakes, sans finned drums) stops straight and true, even with no power assist. I’ve only had to make one panic stop from freeway speed, and it was pretty drama free… which kind of surprised me. Those odd looking wheelcovers *might* have been optional. I’m vaguely remembering something like that being in the accessories brochure during the GT Hawk era. I know other rarities like Halibrand wheels were on the options list towards the end. Another oddity is the Dunlop tires on the test car… I think US Royal and Firestone were the OEM suppliers in ’62.
As are all of these period road tests, this is an interesting read. The brake thing is interesting, as I don’t recall widespread griping about brakes in Studes of the late 50s-early 60s, or at least not more than with most other drum brake cars. This one seems unusually bad.
Ugh those wheels suffer from two sins. First, Studebaker was the lone US manufacturer to stick with the wider whitewalls in 1962. Even Rambler showed the new narrow whitewalls in its brochures. Second, those wheel covers. Almost every car of that period offered optional wheel covers, and they are usually coveted by owners because they dress up the car more than the standard ones. But these? They do not appear to be coveted by the Stude faithful. And for good reason – they are just ugly and do not go with the car at all.
Finally, as to the supercharger issues – are the road tests you refer to distinguishing between the McCulloch unit of the late 50s and the Paxton counterpart from the early 60s? I understand that the former did indeed develop a bad reputation for durability but that the later version was greatly improved and gave pretty good service.
It was in one or more of the Tech articles Roger Huntington did in every issue of CL back then; they were very good. Obviously at the time, the future reliability of the Paxton unit was not yet known. These units have been called “Paxton” since 1957, and I’m not sure just how much was changed since then, but presumably there was an effort to improve the issues with bearings and such.
In any case, apparently the Big 3 were wary of it, in terms of possible warranty costs, among other things.
As you’ve written in the past, when an engine breathes as poorly as did the Studebaker V-8, forced induction is just about the only way to get more power.
The late 50s version was the McCullogh V57 and carried that labeling. McCullough sold off the division (to Andy Granatelli, I believe) and it became known officially as Paxton Products. That unit used in the 1963-64 Studes was labeled as a Paxton. The lineage is clearly the same but there were substantial improvements made.
In Andy Granatelli’s book he goes into detail how one of his brothers figured out to flame cut the inner bearing races on a lathe to improve reliability. They bought Paxton for a good price and the brothers were mechanically adept. Andy was the carnival barker but that was important too.
I refer you to Bill McCoskey’s comment further down. He’s had a lot experience with these.
Don’t listen to me; I know nothing. 🙂
This would be the only American car in my fantasy garage, alongside the Lancia Fulvia and the NSU Ro80, for the styling. But I’d retrofit front disk brakes. The rear grille was deleted for MY 1964, but I think the car looks better with it.
I currently own a 63 model with the OHV6 (for export only). I can tell you that these cars are a pleasure to drive. I often drove it for more than 400 km in a day and never felt tired.
To me this Studebaker Hawk looks very appealing. So much better than 62 Fury and Dodge. Has a kind of timeless style. And MUCH better than fabled Avanti. Too bad the merger with Packard and then with Nash-Hudson didn’t work as George Mason had planned. But even the BIG THREE have killed off OLDS, PONTIAC, Town Car, MERCURY, Crown Victoria, and everything that was good about Chrysler! Here’s to Studebaker for trying to make the best of a hopeless situation. The Hawk styling is so much better than the Lark. As I’ve said in other posts, nothing built today holds my attention
You’d have thought Studebaker would have been one of the beneficiaries of the dismal, downsized 1962 Mopars (which, ironically, looked a lot like something Studebaker would have built), but it seems most of the Chrysler faithful defected to GM products (1962 was the high-point for GM auto market share).
With that said, to me, one of the biggest travesties of the beautiful (but flawed) 1953 Loewy coupe is what Studebaker did to the front end, slapping that upright, ersatz Mercedes grille on every coupe, starting in 1956. The earlier 1954-55 grilles were nothing to write home about, either.
On top of all that, Brooks Stevens had the beautiful, Lark-based Studebaker Sceptre waiting in the wings to replace the GT Hawk. I don’t see that there was any reason Studebaker couldn’t have put the effort of the Gran Turismo Hawk into the Sceptre years sooner and brought that, much more modern looking car out, instead.
Of course, at the same time, Studebaker was wasting most of their time, energy, and the last little money they had on the ill-fated Avanti. It’s almost as if they had resigned themselves to going out of business way before it became a foregone conclusion.
It was a decade-old car in an age of annual styling changes. In 1962, that was a cardinal sin. When it was new, it was seen as yesterday’s family car – like a Brougham version of a Lark. We can enjoy this car more today, than when it was new. I would like one myself.
I know this is just a ’53 coupe with a new taller grille and decklid from ’56, a new roofline from ’62, and a few other tweaks, but somehow it looks completely up to date for a 1962 model and looks timeless today. Nothing “dated” about that short, upright windshield; just look at the all-new ’62 Dodges and Plymouths and you’ll find the same treatment. The front looks Mercedes-esque, and would even more so for ’63. 1963 also marked the first availability of apparently-needed disk brakes (something the big 3 hadn’t gotten around to yet) and the hopped-up R1 engine (which would be my choice to avoid any issues with supercharging and also because the R2/R3/R4 didn’t offer air conditioning). At least in the Avanti due to insufficient room; not sure if the Hawk with its longer hood had the same A/C restrictions. Inside, the dash also looked ahead of its time, and the door panels look of high quality but unfortunately power windows or locks hadn’t been available since 1958. I think those wheel covers look good and distinctive.
I don’t get why the spare tire has to take up so much room; surely there’s a better place for it (it’s recessed into the floor in the Lark). The new squared-off trunk lid starting in 1956 did nothing to help cargo space, as the inner stamping is still the same one used on the lower ’53-55 decklids. But these are little quibbles. This was a gorgeous early personal luxury coupe that predated the Riviera and ’63 Grand Prix. I could totally see myself in one in 1962-64 and shopping for a new car.
By the time I started really paying attention, at the age of five or six when this car was new,, the more plebeian Studebakers were either old and odd looking, or low end Larks. So by contrast, these Hawks really did have a high end image and appeal, similar to a TBird. Nothing really similar from GM or Chrysler. In addition, since I voraciously read the few older hot rod books in the public library, the pictures of older Studebaker Hawks at Bonneville and El Mirage reinforced the performance image. Studillac, anyone? By the way Car Life’s TBird reference made me see a bit of MN12 in this Hawk. I wonder how AI would make the connection between a 1953 Starliner and a 1989 TBird, for 1962.
The GT Hawk is one of those anomalies, a ten year old body that had gone through several prior styling revisions, was face lifted on a shoe string, and comes out looking fabulous. The rear end gives off a vibe reminiscent of the ’61-’63 Lincoln Continental, especially combined with the new roof design. The hardtop has nicely shaped quarter windows, which looked much better than the old heavy door framed designs. The chrome grille was a classic touch that foreshadowed all the Broughams that would follow in the 1970’s. In my eyes, it’s a timeless design. Maybe it does look European. Consider how long and narrow a Jaguar XKE is.
Unfortunately Studebaker didn’t have the money for a better engine, it was always too heavy and too weak, compared to the SBC. The brake problem was probably restricted to this particular car, it may have had low mileage, but test cars can be treated pretty rough and it may have suffered damage from previous testing. I’ve read several other contemporary tests of the Stude hawks and it was never mentioned as a problem.
I’d read about problems with the Paxton superchargers over the years, and this has made me wary of superchargers and turbos, even up to Today. I’d rather have a good old simple V8 or V6. Unfortunately a lot of manufacturers ( think Ford), have embraced the turbo formula.
I like these but they are rare cars in NZ even now, how good were those supercharged Stude V8s? I watched a very tidy barnfind Avanti with supercharged engine being cleaned up on you tube very nice car 43,000 miles recorded but there was paperwork in the car for an engine recondition at 39,000 yes matching numbers car and it ran great but a full rebuild at 39k those are VW rebuild mileages or BMC Mini 1100 type cars.
From Jose Delgadillo: “The GT Hawk is one of those anomalies, a ten year old body that had gone through several prior styling revisions, was face lifted on a shoe string, and comes out looking fabulous.”
Absolutely agree. That’s probably part of the magic. As like in architectural design, you’re presented with hard points and absolutes in the program that cannot change. I think it ends up fostering greater creativity in the end.
I would have gone with a lower (although still raised) grille. Can’t help but wonder if a reprise of the trunk lid’s rear panel shape wouldn’t have been a better choice. Lower, wider, similarly trimmed.
It didn’t have to try to be so continental, although it is distinctive.
Those hubcaps look similar to the 57 Dodge Lancer hubcaps hot rodders pilfered at the time, perhaps the popularity of that style in the custom car circuit was cribbed by Studebaker’s stylists?
When the ’57 Dodge Lancer deluxe wheel covers came out, they were so popular that it wasn’t long before multiple variations on the theme were advertised in car catalogs like J C Whitney.
In checking thru my 1950s and ’60s Whitney catalogs [I still keep a few for reference], I found the basic type of wheel cover shown in the CL photo, available for $31.95 for a set of four, with a choice of 3 different styles: Checkerboard, Waffle-Weave, and Ribbed. It’s the ribbed version on this Hawk.
The GT Hawk CL tested was optioned with the Hi-Po drive train, and Studebaker dealers were trying to sell these as an American sports car. Problem was, the full wheel covers from the factory were not that exciting, so I suspect the dealer ordered a bunch of “sporty” wheel covers from Whitney, and switched them out.
The Autopian (a great site, BTW) just posted a Hawk against a ’63 Rambler for today’s “shitbox showdown.”
Which would you buy?
https://www.theautopian.com/derelict-rarities-1962-studebaker-gt-hawk-vs-1963-rambler-american-440/
I wouldn’t buy that particular Hawk because it’s in such poor condition. If both cars were in good condition, it would be the Hawk in a walk!
I’ve always had an interest in Studebakers, especially Hawks. I bought my first GT Hawk in 1972 for $350, and it had about 45,000 miles on it. That car was a R1 version with automatic, and it had the factory underdash A/C, power disc brakes & steering, full instruments including tach, and the Twin-traction differential.
I’ve also owned a ’62 GT Hawk with 4-speed and the 4 barrel engine, and it was equipped with power brakes and steering like the CL test car. The brakes were never a problem in slowing the car down, it took multiple hard braking stops before any real fading started. So I suspect the car CL tested had been subject to other media tests to the point the brakes had been overheated too many times, resulting in the shoe friction material becoming glazed. The most common problem with GT Hawk brakes is the Girling disc brake calipers that tend to stick, causing one pad to wear rapidly, so the calipers and caliper pistons need to be kept clean and lubricated.
The fastest Hawks I ever had was my 1956 Sky Hawk hardtop and an R2 GT Hawk with the Paxton S/C. The ’56 was equipped with the 289 V8 and 4-barrel, dual exhaust option. It also had the 3-speed & overdrive gearbox. It was also one of the very first Hawks to have the Twi-Traction diff too. It was turquoise and white, with a matching interior, and had been driven only 54,000 miles. About 30 years ago I raced that car [at a local strip] against a ’56 Golden Hawk with the Packard 320 V8, and a ’57 Supercharged Golden Hawk. Both had antomatic transmissions. I won both races, and I think the transmission choices for the other cars made a lot of difference.
I eventually owned several supercharged 289 cars including a ’57 Packard Clipper, ’58 Golden Hawk, and the ’63 GT Hawk mentioned above. I ran a shop specializing in Studebakers and Packards, and we did plenty of work on supercharged S-P products, as they were the cars owners were willing to spend more money on repairing.
In every car we did major work to, we always sent the superchargers out for rebuilding, regardless of if they ran or not. The primary reason we had them all rebuilt, unless they had already been rebuilt, was the very high RPM the output impeller achieved [30,000+ RPM!] These units used 5 small steel balls running in a planetary set, and the balls were highly polished, to the point where handling them with bare fingers could cause unwanted corrosion levels.
By the time these cars came into our shop 30 to 40 years later, most S/C units had the belt drive removed years ago. As mentioned in another comment above, it was very important to maintain the supercharger, and that meant checking the supercharger’s oil dipstick on a regular basis, and changing it per the factory schedules. And if the oil [basically ATF] started turning brown or clear. it needed changing. If it turned color again, it needed to be rebuilt.
It should be noted that there are several people rebuilding both the McCulloch and Paxton versions. I suggest that if the serial number on the S/C matches the car’s original factory build sheet [available from the Studebaker museum in South Bend], then have it rebuilt, don’t do an exchange.
I enjoyed my loaded ’65 Riviera. Now I want my birth year car. A ’64 GT Hawk..PS, PB, R1 with floor mounted Power Sbift Auto, Twin Traction , AC. and partial vinyl top.
3.73 rear end, 4 speed, and 0-60 in 11.4 seconds,,,, not great..
Those wheel covers appear to be derived from a roulette wheel. Life’s was a gamble at Studebaker.
I was 17 when I bought a 1964 Daytona,2 door hardtop,V8 289-4 barrel new,but not an R1.4 speed,disc brakes and 4.10 gears.People can write what they will,but it was fast and could easily break rubber in all 4 gears.Also drove and handled great.Only limit was when the tires let loose.Studebaker V8’s were also tough and durable but always used a little oil.This car went almost 200K with no motor work at all and I was a teenager that loved to drive fast.My answer about Studebaker.A great automotive loss.They were not perfect but very few others even came close.
My first new car was a 62 GT Hawk, in Riveria Blue with matching blue seats, 4-speed, PS, PB AM/FM, clock/tach dash, and a 4 barrel. I had the car with me at Fort Dix where I met Ricky Nelson who had an Avanti. We met at the phone center from time to time and we’d talk Studebakers. Neat cars, and a neat experience. BTW the GT was purchased at Almyra Packard, on Coney Island Ave, in Brooklyn, the sticker was about $3,600, these weren’t cheap cars.