Now *THIS* is MY kind of car!

zorba

https://www.hemmings.com/blog/article/plain-and-simple-1958-studebaker-scotsman/

And it gets 40 MPG on the highway - something modern cars struggle to do, has 101 HP (Plenty), and will go 85. What more would you need?

Big Al1

Bet that car was formidable with the V8! Our local PD had 1962 Studebaker Larks with 327s, it filled the engine compartment!

earlyagain

There's a lot of very cool car content on youtube.

Studebaker had the greatest body styles for pick up trucks.

Both of my modern vehicles are very reliable and comfortable, far exceeding the performance of older ones. 

But.
A bunch of the nickel and dime repairs would never have happened on the cars like the one linked. Those brackets, manifolds, and general plumbing were built well.

Gene L

Shades of J.C. Whitney    who remembers them?

CaliFFL

zorba said:

What more would you need?

Seat belts. 

Gila

zorba said:

https://www.hemmings.com/blog/article/plain-and-simple-1958-studebaker-scotsman/

And it gets 40 MPG on the highway - something modern cars struggle to do, has 101 HP (Plenty), and will go 85. What more would you need?

An 800 rwhp Dodge Challenger... 

zorba

CaliFFL said:

Seat belts. 

Easily added.

Tugar

zorba said:

https://www.hemmings.com/blog/article/plain-and-simple-1958-studebaker-scotsman/

And it gets 40 MPG on the highway - something modern cars struggle to do, has 101 HP (Plenty), and will go 85. What more would you need?

Nice car but plenty of new economy cars can get 30mpg+ on the highway. In consecutive years I drove from Boise, Idaho to Cottonwood, Arizona (about an hour north of Phoenix. Once in a Mazda 3 and the other in a Hyundia Accent. The speed limit most of the way there is 80mph now and the Mazda 3 AVERAGED 38 mpg with the Hyundia right behind at 37 at the speed limit.


My late father in law had a diesel Jetta. It went Cottonwood to Boise which is 920 miles with ONE TANK of diesel. That would be 63.45 mpg and no hypermilling with a loaded car.

Tugar

I think it comes down to what people want to drive. Chevy stopped production on the diesel version of their Equinox. As an SUV it got 43mpg.

zorba

Tugar said:

zorba said:

https://www.hemmings.com/blog/article/plain-and-simple-1958-studebaker-scotsman/

And it gets 40 MPG on the highway - something modern cars struggle to do, has 101 HP (Plenty), and will go 85. What more would you need?

Nice car but plenty of new economy cars can get 30mpg+ on the highway. In consecutive years I drove from Boise, Idaho to Cottonwood, Arizona (about an hour north of Phoenix. Once in a Mazda 3 and the other in a Hyundia Accent. The speed limit most of the way there is 80mph now and the Mazda 3 AVERAGED 38 mpg with the Hyundia right behind at 37 at the speed limit.


My late father in law had a diesel Jetta. It went Cottonwood to Boise which is 920 miles with ONE TANK of diesel. That would be 63.45 mpg and no hypermilling with a loaded car.

That's completely true. But like I said, modern cars "struggle" to get to 40. The Studebaker doesn't have the advantages of modern engineering - yet here we are...

We had a '96 Passat TDI that regularly got over 50, but it was a diesel and Americans as a group are too *something* to drive diesel cars. And here we are with a '58 flathead engine getting (reportedly) 40 MPG. There's something wrong with this picture. Either it doesn't actually get 40 MPG, or all the crap that is foisted on modern cars doesn't do a damn thing but decrease mileage. Probably a bit of both!

Tugar

zorba said:

Tugar said:

zorba said:

https://www.hemmings.com/blog/article/plain-and-simple-1958-studebaker-scotsman/

And it gets 40 MPG on the highway - something modern cars struggle to do, has 101 HP (Plenty), and will go 85. What more would you need?

Nice car but plenty of new economy cars can get 30mpg+ on the highway. In consecutive years I drove from Boise, Idaho to Cottonwood, Arizona (about an hour north of Phoenix. Once in a Mazda 3 and the other in a Hyundia Accent. The speed limit most of the way there is 80mph now and the Mazda 3 AVERAGED 38 mpg with the Hyundia right behind at 37 at the speed limit.


My late father in law had a diesel Jetta. It went Cottonwood to Boise which is 920 miles with ONE TANK of diesel. That would be 63.45 mpg and no hypermilling with a loaded car.

That's completely true. But like I said, modern cars "struggle" to get to 40. The Studebaker doesn't have the advantages of modern engineering - yet here we are...

We had a '96 Passat TDI that regularly got over 50, but it was a diesel and Americans as a group are too *something* to drive diesel cars. And here we are with a '58 flathead engine getting (reportedly) 40 MPG. There's something wrong with this picture. Either it doesn't actually get 40 MPG, or all the crap that is foisted on modern cars doesn't do a damn thing but decrease mileage. Probably a bit of both!

Some of it I totally agree with you. However, a modern car is meant to take the hit and damage to save the occupants. That Studebaker was designed to hose off the blood dash board from the last person killed to sell it to the next person. Does it even have a collapsible steering column? As good as it looks, someone would be lucky to survive a major accident in the Studebaker.

Safety in cars has improved quite a bit since then.You'd be lucky to have a lap belt after it was dug out from between the seats.
.

I would also like to see that make 35+mpg. I owned several slant six Darts. Only about 300 pounds heavier with about 24 more horsepower but I rarely got over 22 even on the highway. That's quite a disparity.

jbp-ohio

I want to survive a 35mph collision.....

earlyagain

We can't have cars collapsing from impact. Solid steel dashboards last longer.

zorba

Spoken like Americans.

"Safe" cars are one thing - the extreme idiocy today's cars have gone to is another.

Make_My_Day

The body style of that 58 Studebaker is not bad, considering most of the others were BUTT UGLY. Personally, if I were to buy a classic Studebaker, it would have to be an Avanti. Now that was a beautiful car.

zorba

Yes it was.

Gene L

I doubt the 40mpg. I also had a slant six plymouth, great engine, but can't remember the mileage.  OTOH, the Kia I used to have had a 4-cylinder turbo engine, putting about 225 HP, and on the interstate, got 39 MPG.  A fine vehicle; I'd buy another if I was in the market.

I used to service old cars (not old then) at a filling station,  and remember they had a kazillion problems.  Some had dozens of lube points, so many there was a manual for each model showing where the lube nipples were.

Miles?   If you took good care of a vehicle, you could probably get 60K miles before you needed an engine rebuild.  Nowadays, you can routinely  get more than 250K on almost any vehicle.  In the old days, no disc brakes, no impact protection for anyone inside the vehicle...that came about 1964.

That Studebaker is as ugly as sin.  I remember reading in an original James Bond book where Felix Leiter had a Studebaker with a Cadillac engine (Studilac).  This would have been about 1954 or so. Still ugly.

Performance parameters have changed.  I saw on "Top Gear" where an Aston Martin DB 5 and a XKE Jag (1963 or 4) went up against a modern Honda Accord in a stright-line acceleration test.  The Honda wiped them out.

Tugar

Gene L said:

Performance parameters have changed.  I saw on "Top Gear" where an Aston Martin DB 5 and a XKE Jag (1963 or 4) went up against a modern Honda Accord in a stright-line acceleration test.  The Honda wiped them out.

Yeah when you realize a stock new VW GTI would wipe the floor with 1970 Hemi Cuda and still take a corner. Times change.

Though I like it when restomods are done right. There was a Chevy II that had a new turbo four crate engine and six speed manual transmission from Chevy. Instead of 150hp stock, it has 272 nearly double and a 50/50 weight distribution. Throw in a few four point harnesses for safety and roll bar, done.

https://www.chevrolet.com/performance/1967-nova-ltg

zorba

Metallurgy, machining tolerances, and especially lubricants have improved vastly. Too bad the rest of it hasn't. The amount of power these days is flat insane too.

Gila

Gila

Spk

Bring it on lady boys. 😁

I'll stick with 4 miles to the gallon.

zorba

I'm pretty sure this is the 8 foot bed, not the 9, but still...

rberglof

https://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/studebaker-avanti/

BamaakII

MPG aside, how many alternators, starters, points and plugs, coils, brake pads and so on would that car go through in 100,000 miles if it didn't need an engine rebuild by then?  Today you change the oil and air filter and your good for 100k.

zorba

For the amount of money I don't have to spend buying, maintaining, and replacing "technology", I'd at least break even and probably be well ahead.

Gene L

rberglof said:

https://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/studebaker-avanti/

I remember when they first came out.  I was in highschool. Saw a picture of one in My Weekly Reader. thought it was a lovely auto.  Made in Canada,  IIRC.

zorba

Now THAT brings back some memories, "My Weekly Reader". Was talking to my granddaughter's school teacher about it. I remember the article about the "Jumbo Jets" when the 747 was introduced.

Bigslug

I like where they went with that Stud.  A lot of folks look at something like that and scream "SAFETY EQUIPMENT!", but that's just one of those philosophical points that some people will answer with "Don't drive like an idiot", or, "You could just as easily die from your pet cat causing you to fall down the stairs"

A certain level of creature comfort and drivability aside (I personally scream "AIR CONDITIONING!"), I find myself asking why folks would option the bejeezus out of a new car, only to replace it with another equally bejeezused car in only five years.

Sure, stuff is going to get better (steering, brakes, engines, etc...), but it would be nice if someone on the manufacturing side would occasionally ask the question "What is this tool ultimately for?" and realize the answer is simply "Go from A to B"

zorba

THANK YOU Bigslug - ain't that the truth. A/C could easily be added to that car, even now. There are two things I insist on having on a car, A/C and cruise control. The rest of it "they" can keep. I don't even want power steering on anything less than a pickup truck - and I wouldn't cry about it if it were missing there too. The engine on that car is completely adequate - if not on the large side, for a passenger car. If that car really gets 40MPG - or even "only" 30 - what does that say about our over-done modern cars that apparently can only get into that range by small size and $10,000 worth of "technology"?

The very least I've ever kept a new car was about 12 years - and that was only because my needs changed. 15 to 18 is about the norm for me, the old MBZ not withstanding.

zorba

Bigslug said:

I like where they went with that Stud.  A lot of folks look at something like that and scream "SAFETY EQUIPMENT!", but that's just one of those philosophical points that some people will answer with "Don't drive like an idiot", or, "You could just as easily die from your pet cat causing you to fall down the stairs"

Safety equipment is fine, safety equipment is good - but Americans are scared of life and over do it (safety equipment) by a couple of orders of magnitude. To the point of ridiculousness. When "they" start legislating bike helmets on kids and other nonsense, I just roll my eyes. I'm tired of "safetycrats" and their helicopter driven Nanny State.