Advertising Last completed movie pages
1955 Studebaker Champion Custom Four-Door Sedan 
Ep. 1.13Class: Cars, Sedan — Model origin: 
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
Minor action vehicle or used in only a short scene
Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2010-02-15 16:31 |
@Commander_57:  |
|
◊ 2010-02-15 22:06 |
Pains me to look at that scene! Mistreatment of 2 rare cars. 1956 Nash on the bottom. The Studebaker is a '53 or '54 Deluxe or Custom. Can see no V-8 on the side vent doors so would go with Champion Custom or Deluxe. Likely a '54 as '53 sedans had the short chrome spear on the rear fenders. (Of course, this car's could have been removed.) '54 Custom Champions had no rear chrome. Also appears to have the higher mounted trunk nameplate, a feature of '54 vs '53. I suppose it COULD be a '55 but the taillamp lenses don't appear to protrude. With lack of more info, I suggest 1954 Studebaker Champion Custom. -- Last edit: 2010-02-27 16:32:36 |
|
◊ 2010-02-26 20:18 |
You're not kidding about the mistreatment, and the sad thing is, they were strictly done that way (both on the show and *for* the show) just for entertainment! It's supposed to be part of a car acrobatic show. I wonder if those cars were as rare in 1968 as they are now. |
|
◊ 2010-02-27 01:43 |
They were 15 years old then - the usual age, when a car is seen as not more than scrap. The usual age, where they were wrecked. |
|
◊ 2010-02-27 03:38 |
Nowadays 15 years old is quite normal for a car, back then cars that old practically didn't exist. Cars aged a lot faster in the 50s/60s/70s.... many would rust through in 3 or 4 years back then (imagine a rusty 2006 model nowadays!), not to mention all the mechanical issues they would have by that time. I would guess this car was probably quite rare even in 1968. |
|
◊ 2010-02-27 06:16 |
Wow, I never realized cars were actually that disposable back then. I just came across this quote about the 1960s Ford Falcons: "To some, the pre-'66 Falcons were the ultimate "throwaway" cars: designed to sell at a low price -- initially just under $2000 -- and to be discarded within five years (some said one year)." Times have certainly changed; manufacturers would never be able to get away with that nowadays. I've noticed in a lot of movies from the 1950s or 1960s that most of the cars seemed to be only a few years old at most, and I always found it odd that so many people seemed to have new or relatively new cars. In comparison, you look at some of the modern movies on this site, and it's not uncommon for cars nearly 20 years old to turn up in the background. |
|
◊ 2010-02-27 16:22 |
I think some of the above comments are exaggerated. Cars usually last as long as their owners are willing to take care of them. Rustproofing has indeed advanced considerably in the last 30-40 years but I would say the engine in a '60's or older car, using modern oils/additives, would last just as long as modern ones. I ran my '57 Studebaker until the mid 1990's with virtually no problems but I made sure it had proper care. Two reasons you saw so many new cars in older movies was product placement and the fact styling changed so rapidly back then that the cars looked dated more rapidly and so weren't used. Compare the visual changes in a 1950 vs 1960 model Ford to 2000 vs 2010 models. No car to my knowledge was "designed" to last 5 years, then be thrown away. (OK, well maybe the Yugo!) Any company that deliberately built its cars to fall apart in 5 years wouldn't stay in business long. When I was a teenager in the mid-'70's, there were LOTS of cars 1960 and older on the road. I know because I was an old car entusiast and watched for them! |
|
◊ 2010-02-28 03:57 |
Obviously I wasn't around back then, but my father always loves telling about how quickly cars aged in the 60s and 70s compared to modern times, and from seeing the ages of cars in old movies and researching other sources about the topic, he's completely right. For instance, when his father (my grandfather) went to trade in his 1972 Ford LTD in for a new one in 1978 (making the car 6 years old), it already had huge rust holes - not just surface rust, rust HOLES! - in the rear quarter panels. For comparison, that would be like a 2004 Ford Crown Victoria with huge rust holes in the body today... almost impossible to imagine, eh? Rust wasn't the only thing. Getting past 100,000 miles on the original engine and trans was quite a feat in the 1960s, and 200,000 was virtually unheard of. Now you can readily find 20-year-old Hondas with upwards of 300,000 miles on the clock, many of them holding up quite well. Of course, I'm not saying older cars didn't exist "back in the day", I'm just saying that it is a LOT easier to go out and find a 20-year-old 250,000-mile car now than it was in 1965, and chances are it would be in much better shape. |
|
◊ 2010-03-01 23:41 |
Well, let's see. We owned a 1951 Studebaker from '51 to '62; a '57 Plymouth until '61; a '64 Cadillac until about 1995; yes, a '72 LTD until 1975; a '75 Buick until 1982; an '82 Buick until 1987; and an '87 Olds Delta 88 until 1993. None of them ever had any "rust holes" and they all gave good service to 100,000 miles plus. I can specifically recall the seat upholstery on the '75 Buick with 100,000 + miles having no sign of wear whatsoever even on the driver's seat. Likewise, we currently have a 1993 Olds Van (well over 100,000 miles) with seats that look brand new and not a fleck of rust on the car anywhere (and it has never been garaged kept). We always gave our cars good care, serviced them at proper intervals and they gave excellent service. |
|
◊ 2011-03-05 15:37 |
At this late date I am changing the year of this Champion to 1955. I looked at the page for the Nash and it shows a partial view of the Studebaker which reveals a '55 front end. (I had taken '55 out of the running earlier because I saw no protruding taillamps. I now realize that's because they have been removed.) Keeping as Champion Custom in the absence of a rear fender nameplate or side trim. -- Last edit: 2011-03-05 15:38:13 |
|
◊ 2016-08-31 20:38 |
Studebaker, except for coupe, hardtop and Speedster models, got a wraparound windshield during the 1955 model year as a running change. The shape of the vent panes on this one tells me that this one is no doubt a late 1955 model. Everything else on this car is consistent with that. Earlier cars had a more triangle shape vent window. -- Last edit: 2016-08-31 20:48:28 |
|
◊ 2016-08-31 22:39 |
Good eye, Donaldo. I had not noticed that. So we have even further confirmation that this is indeed a '55. (And we can now add that it's a late '55.) |
|
◊ 2016-09-02 00:00 |
Body code should be "W2", "W1" indicates the earlier 1955 model. Studebaker called the wraparound windshield 'Ultravista". I once owned a 1962 "62V" when I was still a teenager. A Lark 259 V-8 with overdrive, hill-holder and twin-traction that I bought for $75 in 1969. I had it up on a jack one day on an incline after I forgot to take it out of overdrive. Luckily it hit a tree it my backyard. Otherwise, it would have continued down the hill and over a six foot wall onto a tony street below. My father made me junk it. I think the vent windows would have probably interchanged. That Studebaker was one of the most fun cars I ever had. Comfortable, powerful and pleasant to drive. |
|
◊ 2016-09-02 04:37 |
I have a similar feel for my '57 Commander which I have owned since 1971. |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
