(EXPANDED FROM 4/2/2021)
After Studebaker and Packard combined in 1954, Motor Trend anticipated the possibilities of the two automakers sharing resources. For example, the magazine imagined Studebaker’s lightweight cars getting Packard’s “monstrous new V8 engine, torsion bar suspension and, lately, its 1st-in-the-industry limited-slip differential” (1956, p. 20).
Most of the potential “product synergies” didn’t work out due to cost reasons. For example, Packard’s “Torsion-Level” suspension was deemed too expensive even for high-end Studebaker President models (Langworth, 1979 1993).
The most significant product to come out of the marriage before its spectacular collapse was the 1956 Studebaker Golden Hawk, which was given a Packard V8 and its “Ultramatic” automatic transmission.
The strategy behind this new halo car would become a common one for the U.S. auto industry in future years: Shoehorn a powerful V8 into a relatively light body and watch the tires chirp — literally.
One might even go as far as to argue that the Golden Hawk was the granddaddy of 1960s “muscle cars” such as the Pontiac GTO.
What happens when a light car gets a big engine
The Hawk was a 1950s-version of a mid-sized car. Although its length was almost 204 inches, which was longer than a Chevrolet, its 70.4-inch width was more similar to postwar compacts.
This resulted in an unusually light body for the mid-50s U.S. auto industry. The shipping weight for the Golden Hawk was 3,360 pounds. That was around 320 pounds heavier than a Ford Thunderbird two-seater, 290 pounds lighter than a standard-sized Plymouth Fury and very close to another early muscle car — the compact 1957 Rambler Rebel (go here for further discussion).
When matched with a Packard V8, the Hawk had the best horsepower-to-weight ratio of any mass-produced U.S. car (Holland, 1956). Even when mated to Packard’s Ultramatic transmission, which “doesn’t take full advantage of the car’s potential,” Motor Trend stated that it “still had trouble trying to get off the mark without leaving black lines on the test strip” (1956, p. 22).
The 352-cubic-inch engine with four-barrel carburetor came from the Packard Clipper Custom. This was the only engine offered on the Golden Hawk, but Motor Trend (1956) envisioned an owner swapping in Packard’s 374-cubic-inch engine used on the top-of-line Caribbean, which pumped out 310 horsepower.
Golden Hawk was new top-end sporty Studebaker
From 1953-55 Studebaker’s lower-slung two-door coupe and hardtop were given the same nameplates as the brand’s more utilitarian family cars. That changed in 1956, when they were given a facelift and a new name — the Hawk.
Four models were offered: An entry-level pillared coupe with a six-cylinder engine was called the Flight Hawk. Add a 259-cubic-inch V8 and you got a Power Hawk. A hardtop model with a 289-cubic-inch V8 was named the Sky Hawk. At the top of the line was the Golden Hawk, which was given unique features such as tacked-on tailfins, lots of chrome and a sumptuous interior.
Prices ranged from $1,986 for the cheapest Hawk to $3,061 for the Golden Hawk. The latter car listed for more than the Plymouth Fury ($2,866) but less than the Ford Thunderbird ($3,151).
Car Life magazine called handling nose heavy
Road tests lauded the car’s power more than its handling. For example, Car Life argued that the Golden Hawk’s “trouble is weight distribution. The car is heavy on the front end, which results in [a] tendency for rear wheel slide on dry pavement” (1956, p. 14).
Richard Langworth wrote that the Golden Hawk’s nose-heaviness resulted in the car understeering “with singleminded consistency, and sometimes even interfered with acceleration.” As evidence he quoted Tom McCahill: “Due to the tremendous torque of the engine (380 pounds-feet at 3800 rpm), and due to the [heavy engine], it is almost impossible to make a fast getaway start on any surface without considerable wheel spinning” (1979 1993; p. 86, original italics).
Also see ‘1956 Ugly Car of the Year Award: Indies get desperate’
The 1957 Golden Hawk, which reverted back to Studebaker’s 289 cubic-inch V8, was widely considered a better-balanced sporty car. For example, Ken Fermoyle of Motor Life stated that even with the added weight of a standard supercharger that the car was “lighter than a Packard V-8” by roughly 120 pounds for models equipped with automatic transmissions (1956, p. 16).
“This has changed weight distribution from 59 per cent front, 41 per cent rear to approximately 57 per cent front, 43 per cent rear,” Fermoyle stated. “This might not seem like much but, with cars, figures don’t count as much as actual performance on the road. And taking that 100 lbs. or so off the front end has made a big difference in handling. It doesn’t take long behind the wheel of a ’57 Golden Hawk to prove that” (1956, p. 16).
Motor Trend said ‘heavy Packard V8 made itself apparent’
Motor Trend wrote that the Golden Hawk’s “handling ease was strained” on hard, tight turns at 20-45 mph. “It was here that [the] heavy Packard V8 made itself apparent, for [the] front end became sluggish as the stressed wheel rolled under, a feeling not common to past Studebakers — coupes or sedans — that we’ve tested” (1956, p. 22).
Indie Auto commentator Michael B Nicolella has argued that it is a “common misconception” that the Packard engine was heavier than a Studebaker V8 and that it negatively impacted the car’s handling. However, he did not offer specific evidence to back up his argument.
I grant you that information sources can vary in their reported weights, but I question how so many road testers could have offered an inaccurate assessment of the Hawk’s handling. In addition, I don’t think it controversial to suggest that big-block V8s could negatively impact the handling of muscle cars in the 1960s.
Packard V8 doesn’t outlast the demise of its big cars
Barely 4,000 Golden Hawks left the factory during the 1956 model year. That was almost double its predecessor, the 1955 President Speedster — and only slightly less than the 1957 Golden Hawk, which tallied 4,356 units. So perhaps one could declare the car a modest success as a halo model.
That said, the 1956 Golden Hawk presumably did not sell well enough for the automaker’s management to keep in production the Packard V8 after 1956, when the brand’s big cars were discontinued.
Also see ‘The Studebaker Hawk reached its high point in 1957 — and fell rather quickly’
In a way that was a shame, because — unlike the Studebaker V8 — the Packard engine had hydraulic valve lifters and more room for growth. By 1964 the latter might have been helpful as the muscle car market emerged.
But on the balance, the Packard engine was arguably too big for most Studebaker customers. That this was the best product synergy Studebaker-Packard could quickly come up with hints at how the two brands were a match made in hell.
NOTES:
This article was originally posted on April 2, 2021 and expanded on October 12, 2024. Production figures and specifications are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Flory (2004, 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; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Car Life; 1956. “1956 Golden Hawk.” Car Life. May issue: 14-15. Reprinted in Studebaker Hawks & Larks: Limited Edition Premier. Compiled by R. M. Clarke. Brooklands Books, Surrey UK.
- Fermoyle, Ken; 1956. “The 1957 Golden Hawk.” Motor Life. December issue: 16-17. Reprinted in Studebaker Hawks & Larks: Limited Edition Premier. Compiled by R. M. Clarke. Brooklands Books, Surrey UK.
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2004. American Cars, 1960-1972. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- ——; 2013. American Cars, 1973-1980. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M.; 1979, 1993. Studebaker 1946-1966: The Classic Postwar Years. Motorbooks International, Osceola, WI.
- Holland, Bill; 1957. “Studebaker Golden Hawk.” Speed Age. March issue: pp. 11-15. Reprinted in Studebaker Hawks & Larks: Limited Edition Premier. Compiled by R. M. Clarke. Brooklands Books, Surrey UK.
- Motor Trend; 1956. “’56 Studebaker Gold Hawk Road Test.” February issue: pp. 20-23.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- aacalibrary.org: Studebaker Hawk (1956)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Studebaker (1956)
The statement that the Packard engine was heavier than the Studebaker engine and affected handling is a common misconception. The weight of the car and front end balance was similar to the 1957 car. As for the styling, I find the smaller fin than the ’57 car is very attractive; The car was best looking of the Hawks up until the 1962 GT Hawk. (IMHO).
The Packard SAE paper on the 352 gives its dry weight as 698 lb, complete but without air cleaner. I’ve seen various figures for the Studebaker V-8 ranging from 620 to 685 lb, and the supercharger added 40 to 50 lb. One significant point might be how the engines were mounted in the chassis, which can have as much effect as overall weight.
Fermoyle wrote that the 1957 Golden Hawk was approximately 120 pounds lighter when comparing cars with automatic transmissions and around 100 pounds with manual transmissions. He insisted that the lighter weight of the 1957 model made an obvious difference in handling but acknowledged that new steering gear was also helpful.
The ’57 Golden Hawk may indeed have been lighter, but the difference in engine weights is not nearly that much, especially factoring in the added weight of the supercharger installation. To the extent the Standard Catalog of American Cars can be trusted, the listed factory shipping weight of the ’57 is 40 lb heavier than the ’56. I’d have to look for the AMA specs to verify that, though.
The Automotive Industries statistical issues for 1956 and 1957, which have complete specs for all models, also indicate that the ’57’s shipping weight is greater: 3,400 lb vs. 3,360 lb for the ’56.
I find the Standard catalogs useful but have come across enough questionable — or clearly incorrect — data that I don’t view them as infallible. So I check them against the other major reference guides and, when available, books on specific makes.
In this case, the weight numbers vary — yet the road testers of the time were fairly consistent in their complaints. Could they all have been wrong? Perhaps, but I wouldn’t use the Standard catalogs as my proof.
This discussion also begs the larger question: Did it make sense putting such a heavy V8 in such a light car? The reported weight distribution was hardly a recipe for balanced handling. This is the same fundamental problem with the 1960s muscle cars. They didn’t make much sense aside from when straight-line racing or engaging in “mine’s-bigger-than-yours” contests.
I take your point about the Standard Catalog, but in this case the shipping weights are confirmed by the specification figures compiled in Automotive Industries. (I found the 1956 AMA specs for the Golden Hawk, which list shipping weight as “N/A,” unhelpfully.) I don’t necessarily dispute the contemporary judgment that the ’57 handled better — I’ve never driven a Golden Hawk with either engine — but the difference in engine weights does not seem to bear out the assumption that that was the culprit.
As for what they were doing, I think that is not terribly complicated: Studebaker needed to use at least a certain number of the Packard V-8 engines and Twin Ultramatic transmissions and so installed them in what probably seemed like the most suitable model, even if that wasn’t terribly suitable in an absolute sense. It was undoubtedly a business decision rather than a product planning one.
I haven’t worked with Automotive Industries data so can’t speak to its accuracy one way or another. It does strike me as curious if so many road testers would get the weights wrong. And it raises the question: Where did writers such as Fermoyle get their data from? And if their numbers were so far off, why?
To me the most interesting question: If the weights of the two engines were closer than reported at the time, then why didn’t Studebaker switch to the more modern Packard engine? The Golden Hawk’s engine was arguably too “hot” for a family car, but the basic Packard engine had already been produced in a variety of guises, such as a 320 c.i. version used in the 1955 Clipper, Hudson and Nash.
Conversely, if putting a Packard V8 in even the top-of-line Hawk “wasn’t terribly suited in an absolute sense,” that underlines the basic point of my article — that Packard and Studebaker had too few synergies to benefit from a merger.
The Automotive Industries specifications were likely compiled from the AMA specifications, which somebody in their editorial assembled into tabular form. (The only version of the Golden Hawk AMA documents I found listed the shipping weight as “N/A,” but there were often several revisions of those documents at different times.) In any event, the Golden Hawk test in the August 1957 Motor Life also lists a shipping weight of 3,400 lb, which is what the Automotive Industries specs table indicates.
As for Fermoyle, I don’t seem to have a copy of his 1957 test (I don’t have the Brooklands Studebaker portfolio), but his preview of a preproduction ’56 Golden Hawk (Motor Life, January 1956) remarks:
So, he was not previously under the impression that the Studebaker V-8 was a lightweight. (His early 1956 preview was in a prototype that he estimated was at least 150 lb heavier than a production car would be, not because of the engine, but because of the cobbled-together nature of pilot-build cars.)
I dug around a bit and noted that the ’57 Studebaker had some front suspension changes, including variable-rate front coils with a lower initial spring rate and a revised steering ratio. Those changes would probably have had some impact on the handling feel that isn’t related to the engine, and as I said, I don’t know whether the Studebaker engine and transmission sat differently in the chassis than the Packard V-8/Ultramatic, which would affect the weight distribution even if the actual curb weight was not greatly different.
My point is not to be argumentative for the sake of it, or to defend the Golden Hawk (I am not a Studebaker fan and my only strong feeling about the Golden Hawk is that its dashboard treatment is kind of neat), but to note that there’s some reason to be skeptical of the conventional wisdom drawn from now almost 70-year-old road tests, particularly since the actual engine weights don’t bear it out.
The downfall of the Packard V-8 was ultimately that S-P had to sell the plant that produced it, and given the company’s dire financial situation at that point, transferring the tooling to South Bend was obviously not a priority. A lot of the economies of scale and “synergies” (to use the modern term) promised by the S-P merger were predicated on a complete integration of production facilities and a new shared-model model strategy, which of course would have cost inconvenient amounts of money that neither company had or could get. Would the big V-8 have been useful in some hypothetical all-new senior Studebaker model that would share structural commonality with the Clipper, etc.? Maybe, but that was not how things played out.
“Car & Driver”, in its infamous March, 1964 issue featuring the fictional test of the Ferrari G.T.O. and the 1964 Pontiac G.T.O. “arranged” by Jim Wangers, featured the post-mortem of Studebaker-Packard operations in South Bend. The article detailed nose-heavy Studebakers sedans with most averaging as-tested 59 % / 41 % weight-distribution. Part of this problem was the 1953 chassis with heavy cast-iron engines, including the Packard and Studebaker engines. No wonder the first use of the Bendix-developed “TwinTraction” limited-slip differential was for Studebaker-Packard.
l’d rather see the headline for this article read: 1956 Studebaker Golden Hawk: a match made – Hell YES!”. Have you ever driven a ’56 Golden Hawk? I have.
The source of Mr. Nicolella’s comment may well have been an extensively researched article by Mr. F. Ambrogio, a many-decades-long ’56 Golden Hawk fan and owner, that was published in the Studebaker Drivers Club’s magazine “Turning Wheels” a few years ago.
A possible additional source of the improved handling for ’57 may have been the variable rate front coil springs new that year.
My short experience behind the wheel of a ’56 GH (the owner was siding beside me – so no “test track manoeuvres”) was one of awe at the pure power of the thing. Torque galore! A road locomotive! North American cars of the mid ’50s were generally not wonderfully-handling machines. But, Studebaker Hawks topped faster and handled slightly better than most. Test results supporting this can be supplied!
A Car Life road test of a ’62 Gran Turismo quotes a weight distribution of 56.2% front and 43.8% rear with a standard Stude 289 and 4-speed manual. Also, Stude V8s did not require power brakes and steering for daily driving. Proof: if my 5 foot and a half inch mother (age 50) could handle and enjoy our 2 automatic Hawks just fine (a ’57 and a ’62), then anybody could! It wasn’t “hell” for her!
My driving experience also covers 11 years and thousands of miles owning a ’56 Power Hawk. It handled reasonably well (slow steering) but somewhat better than most ’56 sedans of virtually any of the big 3 (who had no body styles to compare to it) – and stopped amazingly well.
If you’re thinking that any V8 Hawk should be a “sports” car (and l know you’re really not), you’d be disappointed. You’d be even more disappointed in a ’58 T-Bird according to what l’ve read. According to Tom McCahill, writing about the ’58 Bird, “the ride and stability through corners and over dipped roads is typical family-car style, with not a remote hint of “sports car feel”.
Most, if not all Hawks are “hell, yes!” better handling than that!
Do you think that Studebaker should have replaced its in-house V8 with Packard’s?
Maybe for the Hawk. The rest of the lineup was on the smallish side and the Packard big block would be too big for its needs.
I saw a interesting post of a old rumor or urban legend who mentioned if Chevy had considerated Packard V8 big-block?
https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=compact&topic_id=1569&forum=3
And there was some Studebaker models who got an aftermarket conversion where they swapped the Stude V8 for a Cadillac V8 gaining the nickname “Studillac”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studillac
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-mechanix-illustrated-review-tom-mccahill-tests-the-1953-studillac-effortless-125mph-top-speed/
On a off-topic sidenote, one guy did his own version of a “Studillac” but with a 1953 model with a zest of a roof coming from a Plymouth Barracuda fastback. https://inthegaragemedia.com/1953-studebaker-with-a-barracuda-roof/
l agree with Kim. But will add the possibility of truck usage as well. That torque would be useful there.
The Stude V8 is certainly underappreciated (as are “all things Studebaker”, it seems), but even the small extra maintenance and the noise of it’s “solid lifter” valve-train was something the American public would not have perhaps put up with by the ’70s.
I love the studabakers,Desotos,Packards all beautful cars.Even the Nash was really cool.AMC grabbed the ball and made some great cars also.The AMX and Javalin were my favorites.
Buick Century (Roadmaster engine, Special body) in the 30s and the ’49 Olds 88 both predate the GTO as well the Hawk as “muscle cars.” Also when S-P lost the big Packard they also lost the foundry so the Packard V8 never had a chance of continuing past ’56.
I can’t believe that 60 years later, writers still propagate the myth about the front end weight of the 1956 Golden Hawk. If you want to get a more complete report on this ridiculous myth that the 1956 Golden Hawk was so nose heavy, read my article at:
https://1956goldenhawk.com/56ghperformance.pdf
Also, regarding the mid 1950s horsepower race. Let’s face it. The 1957 GH is a great car, but it had nothing new to offer. It had the same horsepower and far fewer cubic inches than the year before. Meanwhile, all the other companies raised horsepower and cubic inches. Studebaker and Packard were the leaders in their respective class in 1956, but by 1957, they took a giant step backwards and without the Packard V8, never caught up.
You can read my report on this at:
https://1956goldenhawk.com/Packard's V8 for 1955-1956.pdf
I think Studebaker knew that had nothing new to offer, so it took a different approach. Would you buy a car because someone said it handled better than last year’s model? Read the magazine articles for 1956, and everyone praised the 1956 GH. But in 1957, all the writers could say was that the 1957 GH handled better than the 1956. Nobody really praised the 1957 GH, all they did was bash the 1956 GH.
Frank, FYI that Indie Auto’s focus is on historical analysis rather rather the collectibility of a given car. In other words, I’m more interested in how well the Hawk did in the marketplace when new.
If the 1956 Golden Hawk with the Packard V8 had been roughly the same weight as a 1957 supercharged Golden Hawk, that raises a number of questions for me. For example, why did the front weight-heaviness myth develop? One would think that Studebaker-Packard’s media people would have anticipated the concern, or at least pushed back against inaccurate reports.
In addition, if the Packard V8 was a decent fit with the Studebaker platform, I’m curious as to why the automaker didn’t keep the engine by moving production to South Bend in 1957 after Detroit operations closed. After all, it was a more modern and larger engine that could have given the new Studebaker-based Packards a bit more credibility.
In another article I weigh in on the 1956 Golden Hawk’s styling (go here). I suspect that you won’t like my negative conclusion, but it could be helpful to note that for 1956 the Loewy coupes saw a much bigger production decline than Studebaker’s family cars. In addition, output went up slightly in 1957 for both the overall Hawk lineup as well as the Golden Hawk model even though family car sales were down. That suggests to me that the 1957 Hawk may have been at least slightly better positioned even though it lost some models.
Steve:
As for the myth, I don’t think Studebaker/Packard cared about the 1956 GH after the introduction of the 1957 GH. There goal was to sell the 1957 model.
When Studebaker/Packard (S/P) sold the modern engine plant in Utica MI, it meant trying to shift everything to South Bend. S/P sold Packard V8 engines to American Motors Corporation in 1955 and 1956, for use in their Hudson Hornet and Nash Ambassador models. However, in late 1956, AMC introduced their own V8, and no longer bought engines from S/P. I believe this fact weighed heavily on the decision to drop the Packard V8, and stick with the Studebaker V8. I feel certain that the cost of moving everything was also a factor. S/P never moved the Packard body and chassis parts either. I don’t know if Studebaker ever considered putting the Packard V8 into other models, such as the President.
I agree with you regarding the 1953-53 Starliner and Starlight styling. I thought it was the most beautiful design of the decade. It is too bad that S/P couldn’t do a better job of adapting that design, to the other sedans. They simply did not have the same graceful appearance.
You make some good points regarding the 1956 GH styling. Ironically, those same points are the reasons I liked the car so much. I guess ugly is in the eye of the beholder. Apparently more people agreed with you than they did with me. I think a big sales factor would have been the price. I felt Studebakers models were positioned with the low price offerings of the big three, Chevrolet, Ford, and Plymouth. The price of the Golden hawk was several hundred dollars more, and while the big three had all new models in 1955, the Hawks were nothing more than a facelift of the older platform. In fact, that same platform was used all the way to 1964. Probably most sales were to the loyal Studebaker customers, and not so much for someone looking for a new car.
You have an interesting web site. Good luck with it.
Frank, I would think that an aggressive media relations team would have moved quickly to squelch the weight-heavy argument, such as by providing data. Indeed, this was such an obvious question that the automaker arguably should have addressed it up front when the Golden Hawk was introduced.
I could see how the Packard V8 could have been a victim of retrenchment in 1956. Moving the V8 to South Bend would presumably have cost at least some money, and as you note, American Motors had already stopped purchasing V8s. That said, might other automakers have had an interest in the Packard V8, such as International-Harvester or even Willys Jeep? The details of such deals might have been less lucrative than with American Motors, but it would have resulted in increased production and added revenue.
Of course, they could have also tried to sell the Studebaker V8, but its displacement limitations and mechanical valve lifters arguably made it the weaker choice than the Packard V8 if weight had not been a meaningful factor.
Steve:
I think the point to consider here is that there was never any mention of the front end weight problem when the Hawk was introduced in 1956. There was no need to address it because it didn’t exist. It was only when the 1957 Hawks were introduced that the (so called) front end problem from the prior year became big news. S/P was focusing on selling 1957 models. Bashing the 1956 GH wasn’t a concern, and only enhanced the selling point of the 1957 GH.
I’m guessing you did not read my article, where I quote virtually every auto magazine article written in 1956 and 1957 regarding the Golden Hawks of those years. Every writer had nothing but praise for the 1956 GH, and seemed to emphasize that any handling problems could easily be handled.
However, all the articles from 1957 introduced the myth about the front end weight of the 1956 GH. Most of those articles from 1957 were written by the same writers who praised the 1956 GH a year earlier. Additionally, virtually every article I’ve seen, written since 1957 perpetuates the myth of the nose heavy 1956 GH. Why wasn’t this ever noticed in 1956, but suddenly became a major issue in 1957? The 1957 GH weighed 40 pounds more than the 1956 GH. That 55 pound* supercharger, hanging over the front of the engine, negated any difference in engine weight between the 1956 Packard and Studebaker engines.
*About he supercharger. Jon Myer, noted Studebaker adviser stated: I have an original mounting bracket and most of the rest of this type stuff in stock so I just weighed everything. The weights on 57 Golden Hawk items are bracket, arm, spring, pulley 10 lbs, air box 6 lbs, S/C elbow 1 lb. Add another 2-5 lbs for hoses, bolts some type of bonnet etc. and the total would be around 55 lbs. You can’t add in carb, special oil fill pipe, thermostat housing or air cleaner as the normal engine had these also.
I personally took my two 1956 Golden Hawks to the weigh station near my home, along with a friend who had his 1957 GH weighed. The cars were comparably equipped, with a full tank of gas.
1956 Golden Hawks – Equipment Ultramatic, PS.
Front end weight 2120 lbs. – Rear end weight 1640 lbs. – Total car weight 3760 lbs.
Weight distribution – Front = 56.38% Rear = 43.62%.
1956 Golden Hawks – Equipment Manual 3 speed, PS, Dual Quad Carbs.
Front end weight 2140 lbs. – Rear end weight 1640 lbs. – Total car weight 3780 lbs.
Weight distribution – Front = 56.61% Rear = 43.38%.
1957 Golden Hawk – Equipment Flight-o-Matic, Supercharger, PS, PB.
Front end weight 2120 lbs. – Rear end weight 1630 lbs. – Total car weight 3750 lbs.
Weight distribution – Front = 56.53% Rear = 43.47%
I ask you, where is this front end weight myth identified? I looked at several offerings from about 10 autos for 1956, and the front to rear weight distributions were roughly the same as the 1956/57 Golden Hawks.
Even later models had similar front to rear weight distribution. September 2005 edition of Motor Trend magazine compared a Chevrolet HHR to a Chrysler PT Cruiser.
HHR weight distribution – 57% Front, 43% Rear.
PT Cruiser’s distribution – 58% Front, 42% Rear.
You mentioned a focus on historical analysis. I think I provided that. As for the myth, is has been spread for nearly 70 years by pseudo intellectuals who “read it” somewhere, and want to flaunt their knowledge by repeating what they perceive to be fact. After all, if it is written, it must be true.
The myth is a mystery to me. I just don’t get it, because it isn’t there.
I get that your first article says that “no one seemed to notice” nose heaviness in the 1956 Golden Hawk. However, I have in front of me a February 1956 Motor Trend road test that states that the “heavy Packard V8 made itself apparent” with “sluggish” cornering – “a feeling not common on past Studebakers – coupes or sedans – that we’ve tested.”
Meanwhile, a May 1956 Car Life road test complained that the Packard V8 “provides more power than the chassis design can properly handle. Avoiding “tires screaming on the concrete up to 25 mph” could be “remedied to some extent by filling the trunk with sand bags, which would equalize weight distribution.” However, the article noted, “Perhaps the best solution is to buy the lower-priced Sky Hawk with its lighter weight Studebaker V8 of 210 bhp.”
In your first linked story you discussed seven articles about the 1956 Golden Hawk but did not include the above two. That was despite Motor Trend and Car Life being major American magazines (the link to your second story doesn’t work so can’t address it).
Your first story did mention a January 1956 Motor Life road test, but you left out that writer Ken Fermoyle stated that he “wondered if the heavier Packard V-8 would have much effect” on handling. It’s true that Fermoyle went on to write that the “weight difference would not be too great since the Studebaker V-8 at 685 pounds is no lightweight.”
In short, your argument that “there was never any mention” of nose heaviness in 1956 is not factually correct. Thus, there was arguably a good reason for Studebaker-Packard to address the issue.
Here’s the thing: I see auto history as a team sport. None of us can possibly know everything about a given car. That’s particularly true for those of us who do research on a volunteer basis in our spare time. So I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t purposely leave out of your article information that conflicted with your apparently deeply-held opinion.
However, you did make a sweeping statement that proved to be incorrect — and that makes your sanctimonious railing against “pseudo intellectuals” sound rather hollow to me.
Ouch! Now you are getting too nasty for me.
I’ll just say that these writers drove a 1956 GH through the most torturous conditions for a very show period of time. I drove both my cars for 35 years under mostly less strenuous conditions, and never, NEVER, noticed any handling problems due to the heavy front end. Wheel spin was definitely something to behold, and I loved it. But never came close to losing control.
Enjoyed our little back and forth, but I see it will never amount to anything.
so Long, Steve. It’s been a trip.
Frank A
I was taught in journalism school that the reader should generally have the last word. So I’m going back to my chores.