(EXPANDED FROM 11/3/2021)
This may not be a very popular perspective, but I would suggest that the so-called Loewy coupes were at their best in 1955. Although the styling wasn’t as clean as the 1953-54 models, some of the production bugs had been worked out and 1955 brought a new dashboard that was both more functional and futuristic.
In addition, if Studebaker was all but required to add chrome and multi-colored paint, I would rather take a top-end 1955 hardtop over the equivalent 1956 model.
‘Butter-knife’ trim was better than weird zig-zag
As a case in point, the “butter knife” side trim on the featured 1955 President hardtop was a decent way to add brightwork without the cost of changing the door sheetmetal. Whatever the aesthetic appeal of the downward arc of the upper-fender character line, it didn’t easily lend itself to being dressed up.
Raymond Loewy’s design team had apparently learned from its mistakes in 1954, such as when the President sedan was adorned with a thick chrome piece that plowed right through the character line. Why did they add a crease that would be problematic only one year later?
The 1955 President’s butter-knife chrome piece wasn’t an ideal solution, but at least it didn’t sag at the B-pillar like the upper-fender trim on the top-end 1956 model, which was called the Golden Hawk. Nor was there a weird zig-zag to accommodate the tacked-on tail fins.
For 1955 all Studebakers received a much more chrome-laden fascia. This worked the least well on the taller family cars, where the slope of the grille clashed with the upright hood. In contrast, the lower-slung coupes and hardtops arguably had a well-integrated, if rather chromey, look.
Hawk was a good idea in theory but poorly executed
For 1956 Studebaker management correctly — if belated — recognized that trying to use the same styling for its family cars and Loewy coupes was penny-wise and pound-foolish. That, in turn, led to giving the coupes a distinct nameplate — the Hawk.
Unfortunately, Studebaker assumed that the road to success was to throw as many doodads as possible onto the Hawk. Perhaps the only unambiguously good move was to get rid of the downward arc on the door sheetmetal. One could also argue that giving the trunk lid a boxier shape cultivated the illusion of greater luggage capacity, which was a weakness of the Loewy coupes. The problem with the ribbed motif was that it had an unduly busy look.
The biggest mistake was not carrying over the hood from 1955. Instead, the Hawk was given a gaudy treatment worthy of Virgil Exner, replete with a radiator grille that looked like Jimmy Durante’s nose. This would not age well, particularly once the Thunderbird switched to a four-seater in 1958.
European styling blamed for slumping sales
Richard M. Langworth reported that company executives such as Harold Churchill blamed Studebaker’s struggling sales on a sloping hood and European looks. Loewy and his design team were thus forced to come up with a facelift that better mimicked the high and blunt hoods of cars from General Motors. The nearest management would get to a European look was a “Mercedes-like grille” (Langworth; 1979, 1993; p. 81).
Despite management’s insistence that more conventional styling would sell better, the opposite occurred. In 1956 Hawk output fell 44 percent — barely surpassing the two-seater Ford Thunderbird. That’s despite having a back seat, a larger model range and a much lower price.
In addition, Hawk production dropped a good 11 percent more than Studebaker’s family cars. While it’s true that the latter received more substantial sheetmetal changes, the luster of the Loewy coupes was clearly wearing off.
Why the 1955 models pointed in a better direction
As the 1950s wore on the Loewy coupes were likely to have had increasing trouble competing against the likes of the Thunderbird regardless of what Studebaker did. As I have argued here, the automaker was simply too small to keep two distinct bodies competitive in an era dominated by frequent styling changes.
However, I do think that the 1955 models pointed to a somewhat better path forward. This is because they were flashier than their predecessors but still displayed signs of good taste. As a case in point, the President had lovely ornaments at the peak of the front fenders. The rear fenders emulated tail fins without looking excessive. And the side trim was suitably trendy without being overwrought.
I grant you that the interior of the President looks less upscale than that of the pictured Golden Hawk (although I cannot speak to whether either has original interior fabrics).
Of course, during the 1955 model year Studebaker also came out with a limited-production model called the Speedster. The car’s diamond-shaped seat fabric was rather loud, but the Speedster also had a special dashboard with full instrumentation.
I would suggest that the 1955’s dashboard should have been carried over for at least a few years. It looked upscale and anticipated the strongly horizontal styling of mid-60s cars.
The redesigned 1956 dashboard may have had more complete instrumentation than all but the Speedster, but it looked bland and old fashioned. And as the Hawk aged, the dashboard — which was kept in production through 1961 — served to reinforce the impression that the car was a relic from a bygone era.
Strippo models undercut the car’s sporty image
The main problem with the 1955 Loewy coupes was that they were too heavily linked to Studebaker’s line of family cars. As a case in point, low-end models were offered that undercut the sportiness and prestige of Loewy’s trend-setting design.
One could argue that Studebaker should have stopped offering six-cylinder models on the Loewy coupes. By the mid-50s the automaker was so concerned that its aging six was no longer competitive even in its family cars that management attempted to buy a more modern, over-head-valve six from American Motors (Langworth; 1979, 1993). AMC refused, so Studebaker was stuck with an anemic engine that arguably worked against the image of a sporty coupe.
The six-cylinder Hawk made up only 26 percent of the new nameplate’s production in 1956 and 22 percent in 1957. Even in 1958, which was marked by a recession, under 30 percent of Hawk output came from sixes. This was despite fairly modest list prices. For example, in 1956 the base Flight Hawk went for under $2,000, which hovered between a mid-level Ford Customline and a top-end Fairlane two-door sedan with a six.
Also see ‘1955 1/2 Studebaker President struggles to keep up with competition’
If you subtract out production of sixes, the Hawk was outsold by the Ford Thunderbird in both 1956 and 1957. This was despite the 1956 T-Bird’s list price of $3,151, which was around $100 higher than a top-end Golden Hawk and more than $1,000 more than the Power Hawk, which was a pillared coupe with a V8.
A pillared coupe clashed with the car’s stylishness
It might have also made sense to ditch the pillared coupe by 1956. At that point in time the public arguably associated halo models with hardtops whereas economy cars were associated with pillared coupes. And once Studebaker offered a “real” two-door sedan for its family cars in 1956, that arguably allowed the Hawk to focus more on being a sporty car.
In suggesting that the coupe should have been ditched, I should acknowledge that they sold consistently better than hardtops from 1953-58. In the car’s introductory year, the hardtop generated almost 42 percent of output but fell to 33 percent in 1955. Production rebounded to 40 percent in 1956. Curiously, in 1957 hardtops made up only 24 percent of output, but that may have been because mid-level models were dropped.
1955 was the last good sales year for the Loewy coupes
For 1955 the Loewy coupes saw output almost reach 35,000 units. That was less than half of the production of 1953, when almost 79,000 cars left the factory. Even so, 1955 totals were up 26 percent from the previous year — which was twice as big of a juas for Studebaker’s six-cylinder family cars.
More significantly, after 1955 the production of Loewy coupes would collapse and never rebound. In 1956 and 1957 output hovered around 19,000 units. That was not good enough to outsell the two-seater Thunderbird in 1957.
And then in 1958 the four-seater T-Bird would almost hit 38,000 units, which was exceptional given the weak economy and dismal sales of premium-priced big cars (go here for further discussion).
Ford was basically copying what Studebaker had pioneered — a well-trimmed, V8-powered hardtop that looked sporty but had many of the creature comforts of a family car. Ironically, the T-Bird even offered a European-style sloping hoodline that Studebaker would ditch in 1956. Might the Loewy coupes have sold better over the next few years if management hadn’t panicked and tried to make them look more like GM cars?
NOTES:
This story was originally posted Dec. 1, 2019 and expanded on Nov. 3, 2021 and July 14, 2025. Production figures were calculated from base data from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Flory (2009) and Gunnell (2002).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2009. American Cars, 1946-1959: Every Model, Year by Year. McFarland & Co.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M.; 1979, 1993. Studebaker 1946-1966: The Classic Postwar Years. Motorbooks International, Osceola, WI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- ads.aacalibrary.org (Antique Automobile Club of America): Studebaker (1955, 1956)
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: Studebaker (1955)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Studebaker (1954, 1955, 1956)
On the subject of Studebaker dropping the 6-cylinder models by 1956, would a 200-202 V8 (as the company originally wanted to develop before settling for the 224) have been an adequate replacement for the inline-6 compared to a new inline-6 OHV or even less likely a Studebaker V8-derived V6?
Based on the Curbside Classic article on the Studebaker V8, it is a pity its development did not turn out better than it did. The article says Studebaker should have essentially copied certain key elements from the Cadillac V8 that specifically gave the Cadillac many of its inherent qualities and scaled it down to reduce the deck height of the block, save weight, and create a more compact engine almost reminiscent of a SBC precursor.
Also, the hand-shake agreement with AMC to buy their OHV 6 cylinder did not see light of day, so Stude was forced to use their own 185 flathead again (and they had already cancelled the tooling to convert it to a more efficient f-head) By the end of 1955 there was no money left to remedy the problem on their own.
Studebaker was a pioneer in the introduction of postwar American OHV V8’s (tied for third). It was a good bet at the time that future high octane gasoline availability would make a production engines prepared for this development simultaneously more powerful AND efficient. A worthy goal. Studebaker’s V8 was therefore robustly built to use new fuels (to about 14:1 compression ratio). But the big three’s engines grew mostly in size and power, with future efficiency not given the same consideration. So Studebaker, out of money at the wrong time again (er…still), was “stuck” with a sturdy, reliable engine, already more efficient (yes, more than a Chrysler Hemi in horsepower per cubic inch) than existing V8s of the day and well suited to take on the supercharging soon to come. BUT, henceforth, forged cranks and rods, big bearing sizes (bigger than a Chrysler “Hemi”), timing gears – not chains, no head gasket problems (more head bolts than even the competition’s later engines ), decent oiling, and solid lifters – were all “standard” on every Studebaker V8 ever made! Would you rather have that – or a more ubiquitous, cheaper-to-produce engine labeled as “cruder” by a number of machinists that know both?
Stewdi, I’d agree that the Studebaker V8 had a lot going for it. The basic challenge is that fielding a modern six-cylinder engine was much better suited to Studebaker’s narrow and light body. The Rambler basically stole the mid-sized family car market from them (go here for further discussion).
Since the above story focuses on the Loewy coupes, I might add that these cars arguably represented the best fit with Studebaker’s V8. Thus, it’s surprising to me how long the brand took to phase out six-cylinder Hawk models.
I have read a variety of scenarios about Studebaker’s situation with six-cylinder engines. Richard Langworth suggested that the F-head idea lost steam because it was “pretty old hat by 1955 standards” (1979, 1993; p.83).
Meanwhile, James Ward (1995) wrote that it was Studebaker-Packard head James Nance who in early 1955 rejected a request by AMC to buy the Studebaker V8. AMC proceeded to develop its own . . . and then insist that it did not have the capacity to sell sixes to Studebaker.
I question AMC’s answer. Langworth wrote that AMC had the capacity to produce 160,000 to 180,000 sixes in Kenosha. That would have filled the needs of both automakers until 1958, when AMC would have to expand production capacity anyway due to soaring Rambler sales. I have argued here that not trading engines was one of the bigger mistakes of AMC head George Romney.
Was it within Nash’s (later AMC’s) capability to both convert what later became the original AMC Straight-6 (originally the 600 / Statesman Six) to OHV earlier on as well as enlarge it to about 206 cu in / 3.4-litres (if not closer to around 3.5-4-litres)?
That’s a good question; my guess is that Nash could have but chose not to. Perhaps that was at least partly because they already had a larger six that was used on the Ambassador and the Nash-Healey.
There was probably room for it to reach 3470cc / 212 at most under Nash/AMC based on the overbores achieved with the 196, which slots it nicely below the 3.8/4.1 Ambassador engines without overlap whilst also indirectly replacing the latter in the early days of AMC (for use in the Rambler/American and Six/Classic) prior to the new AMC Six.
Happy new year!
5 mistakes of the independents, engine wise:
1) The development of the V8 by AMC, instead of the Packard or Studebaker V8
2) The longer than necessary use of the Studebaker straight 6
The above 2 points show that the 2 major independent automotive groups were divided by the policies (lucrative defence contracts for them instead for the defence arm of the independents, lack of state imposed competition) of the US state and the big three, when a cooperation between the two was urgent and more than anything needed
3) The abandoning of the Hudson straight 6 by the Rambler brand; the Rambler Rebel could also had been a Rambler Hudson with the 5.0 litre – 190 bhp engine side by side with the Rebel/ Hudson V8 edition we know
4) The Studebaker – Packard group had 2 different good V8s already during the 1950s, but had gone out of business before the AMC eventually did. It’s a very strong point about the not so urgent need of a V8 during the 1950s
5) The use of V8 engines of the Big three, by Willy’s Jeep and International Harvester, instead of the above mentioned V8s from the independents
Wasn’t the taller hood on the ’56 necessary to accommodate the Packard V8? Perhaps the right move might have been for the coupe with that motor to have been a Packard branded car with an updated traditional ox bow grill, while the coupes with Studebaker V8s retained the lower hood.
Langworth said it was for stylistic reasons. He wasn’t always right but I wonder whether Barn Finds (2021) was trafficking in one of those myths that sound right but aren’t actually true. I don’t think the hood was different for 1956 versus thereafter, although the 1957-58 Golden Hawk had a raised center section where the hood scoop normally would be.
Did Studebaker ever address the weak frame issue? I don’t recall ever reading that they had, but logic would indicate they would have had to fix it to be able to use the Packard sourced V8.
The frame was beefed up for 1954. I would imagine that additional steps would have been needed to strengthen the frame for the Lark convertible.
Yes. The ladder frame gauge was increased but the “big news” was a really thick X-frame member in convertibles and sliding-roof Wagonaires. And that frame configuration was underpinning the fibreglass body of the Avanti, too!
Yes, definitely. One proof of that is the survival numbers of Hawks. Over a third of ’58 Packard Hawks are said to be still with us – and also half of the 1700 ’64 GT Hawks. Of course, sporty 2-doors “always” seem to survive in much better numbers than their more pedestrian, 4 door brethren.
Studebaker died in 1956. The automotive burial took 11 more years corporately. Without the ability to tool up a truly competitive car platform with wheelbases between 110-inches and 120-inches Studebaker was truly S.O.O.L. Its engines, V-8 and six, were acceptable, albeit on the heavy side.
Using your logic, perhaps you could even say that, effectively, Studebaker died in the fall of 1954. Perhaps we could also say that AMC may have effectively died in 1967, were it not for the Kaiser Jeep acquisition.
But both companies were feisty and went on to quite a few significant successes from an American auto history standpoint, although none were for very long, and none “did the trick” for ultimate success.
Steve posts a lot of “takes” on the hows and where-to-fors that happened after 1954 and 1967 – and I, for one, eat it up! l’m thankful for the folks at both companies that fought to keep them alive. Don’t dismiss Studebaker as a corpse and out of luck in’56. Considering it DIDN’T have an “ace in the hole” like Jeep, it still made good products that pleased 100s of thousands of people for another decade. And, it couldn’t have done any of that without a “core” type of chassis that made sense in many ways.
The V8 was heavy, but the engineers bet that post-war gasolines would be refined to higher octanes (to achieve both better power AND economy), but this did not happen. So the V8 got “overbuilt” to take higher compression than was unnecessary as it turned out. The Champion six was also good for its time, and fairly light weight, actually, as it was originally engineered for an economical and durable “compact” car (and served the Army in the “Weasel”, by the way).