Designing the New Studebaker...

[Tuckeroo]

Some of these Studebakers could share a parallel universe with 21st Century Tuckers...

http://deansgarage.com/2010/designing-new-studebaker/#more-4201

[Natalie]

Some of these Studebakers could share a parallel universe with 21st Century Tuckers...

http://deansgarage.com/2010/designing-new-studebaker/#more-4201

It's amazing how the past keeps changing, yet the future has looked the same for over half-a-century!

[Tuckerfan1053]

Funny, the first time I saw a 53 Studebaker Lowey Coupe (in the late 90s) I had no clue that it was an over 50 year old design, and thought that it was some small production European sports car.

Oh, and Studebaker's not exactly dead: http://www.studebakermotorcompany.com/home/home/

(The Avanti has remained in production since it was first introduced, BTW, so Studebaker's hardly a dead make. More like a zombie make.)

[Tuckeroo]

Funny, the first time I saw a 53 Studebaker Lowey Coupe (in the late 90s) I had no clue that it was an over 50 year old design, and thought that it was some small production European sports car.

Oh, and Studebaker's not exactly dead: http://www.studebakermotorcompany.com/home/home/

(The Avanti has remained in production since it was first introduced, BTW, so Studebaker's hardly a dead make. More like a zombie make.)

If you count the comings and goings of Avanti as Studebaker having never left the wheeled vehicle business, that would make it the oldest maker of wheeled vehicles in this country, having started manufacturing horse drawn wagons in 1852 (hence I said "wheeled vehicles" and not "automobiles.") But even if you put their official end year at 1967, that still gave them a 115-year run. Ford will achieve this next year if you start their run with the 1896 Quadricycle. Oldsmobile could've been a contender if you count R. E. Olds' 1894 prototype, but as it was with production ending in 2004 they ended at 110 years. One for the trivia board, perhaps? It really depends upon how you qualify it. Kaiser could be said to still be in business (health insurance, that is), and again Studebaker as Studebaker-Worthington Leasing...but that's getting out of "wheeled-vehicle" territory.

[Tuckerfan1053]

Funny, the first time I saw a 53 Studebaker Lowey Coupe (in the late 90s) I had no clue that it was an over 50 year old design, and thought that it was some small production European sports car.

Oh, and Studebaker's not exactly dead: http://www.studebakermotorcompany.com/home/home/

(The Avanti has remained in production since it was first introduced, BTW, so Studebaker's hardly a dead make. More like a zombie make.)

If you count the comings and goings of Avanti as Studebaker having never left the wheeled vehicle business, that would make it the oldest maker of wheeled vehicles in this country, having started manufacturing horse drawn wagons in 1852 (hence I said "wheeled vehicles" and not "automobiles.") But even if you put their official end year at 1967, that still gave them a 115-year run. Ford will achieve this next year if you start their run with the 1896 Quadricycle. Oldsmobile could've been a contender if you count R. E. Olds' 1894 prototype, but as it was with production ending in 2004 they ended at 110 years. One for the trivia board, perhaps? It really depends upon how you qualify it. Kaiser could be said to still be in business (health insurance, that is), and again Studebaker as Studebaker-Worthington Leasing...but that's getting out of "wheeled-vehicle" territory.

There's another way that Kaiser could be said to still be in business, since they owned Jeep for a time and Jeep's are still in production (not to mention if you tried to sell cars under the nameplate of Kaiser, Chrysler would sue the pants off of you, them having gotten the rights to the name when they bought AMC).

[Tucker Fan 48]

Funny, the first time I saw a 53 Studebaker Lowey Coupe (in the late 90s) I had no clue that it was an over 50 year old design, and thought that it was some small production European sports car.

Oh, and Studebaker's not exactly dead: http://www.studebakermotorcompany.com/home/home/

(The Avanti has remained in production since it was first introduced, BTW, so Studebaker's hardly a dead make. More like a zombie make.)

Seems like this guy is dreaming a bit. Anyone with any knowledge of the Tucker Corporation understands how hard it is to start a auto company from scratch. In 2010 it would be 10 times harder than anything Preston Tucker faced and he had a plant and some people that had some experience. Given the changes in the automotive landscape of the last two years, why would anyone start a company from scratch? If this guy was serious he could have owned either Hummer or Saturn just for the asking. Sure neither are perfect but Saturn had a dealership network. I'm sure someone could have got GM to toss in a plant or two. There was probably even some government cash that would have helped keep it afloat for a year or two. Starting a plant and building a new brand with a dealer network is next to impossible in todays world. It'd be much easier to have taken a brand with loyal owners like Saturn and fix the company. Even that would have taken boatloads of cash.

[TuckerCar]

A car company does not a flashy website make. Or something like that.

[Tuckerfan1053]

Funny, the first time I saw a 53 Studebaker Lowey Coupe (in the late 90s) I had no clue that it was an over 50 year old design, and thought that it was some small production European sports car.

Oh, and Studebaker's not exactly dead: http://www.studebakermotorcompany.com/home/home/

(The Avanti has remained in production since it was first introduced, BTW, so Studebaker's hardly a dead make. More like a zombie make.)

Seems like this guy is dreaming a bit. Anyone with any knowledge of the Tucker Corporation understands how hard it is to start a auto company from scratch. In 2010 it would be 10 times harder than anything Preston Tucker faced and he had a plant and some people that had some experience. Given the changes in the automotive landscape of the last two years, why would anyone start a company from scratch? If this guy was serious he could have owned either Hummer or Saturn just for the asking. Sure neither are perfect but Saturn had a dealership network. I'm sure someone could have got GM to toss in a plant or two. There was probably even some government cash that would have helped keep it afloat for a year or two. Starting a plant and building a new brand with a dealer network is next to impossible in todays world. It'd be much easier to have taken a brand with loyal owners like Saturn and fix the company. Even that would have taken boatloads of cash.

He's not really doing it from scratch, however. He's been selling Avantis (which were heavily modded Camaros and then Mustangs when GM quit building Camaros) for over a decade and since purchasing the rights to the Studebaker name has been selling modded Hummer H2s as Studebaker trucks.

Nor could he have picked up Saturn or Hummer "just for the asking." Penske (no dummy when it comes to the automotive world) tried to buy Saturn, but the terms which were forced on him by GM were so onerous that he was forced to walk away from the deal (even though he'd set up a system by which he could expand the product line by importing rebadged Indian built pick ups that would have retailed for less than $10K) and a Chinese company was supposed to take over Hummer, but that deal fell apart for similar reasons.

How viable is it to be starting up a new car company (and building cars which are conventionally powered, rather than something "sexy" like an electric vehicle) at this time is another matter. I know that we tend to think of the 60s as being boom years for the auto industry, but I'm not certain that was really the case. Not only did a number of car makers go under, but none of the surviving car makers saw enough demand to justify buying the Packard plant (or many of the other plants of extinct makes) and building cars there. I suspect that we're in for some rude awakenings in the auto industry very, very, soon.