I would agree with 1964 Studebaker Hawk fans that it was a remarkable design. However, after an 11-year production run, the car was looking decidedly past its prime.
But first let’s look on the positive side. I can’t think of another U.S. car introduced in the first half of the 1950s that could have stayed in production as long as the Hawk with as few sheetmetal changes. The 1952 Willys Aero and 1951 Kaiser could be given consolation prizes, but their styling arguably didn’t age quite as well.
The Studebaker’s basic design was introduced in the 1953 model year and ended production during 1964. Think about how much the styling of U.S. cars changed during that time period. Now consider that the 1964 Hawk could still be sold as a stylish coupe. Even the Checker cab had newer sheetmetal, yet it was sold on utilitarian attributes rather than its stylishness.
Hawk survived because of its relative lowness
The biggest reason why the Hawk survived so long was because it was one of the first high-volume U.S. cars to be given a relatively low beltline and roofline. The main difference between the first models introduced in 1953 and the last ones built in 1964 was a slightly lower roofline (54.6 inches versus 56.3 inches).
Otherwise, the most significant styling changes to the car were the addition of a radiator grille and a boxier trunk lid. Everything else was relatively minor, such as a more modern dashboard.
The 1951-55 Kaiser also had an unusually low beltline, but its staying power was undercut by a weird, armadillo-shaped roofline. Meanwhile, the 1952-55 Willys Aero had an exceptionally clean design but was a rather tall 60 inches. That was an inch more than the Nash Rambler.
Another reason why the Hawk’s styling was so timeless was because it was based on a compact platform that was only 71 inches wide. So even though it had rounded fender tops like every other early-50s U.S. car, it didn’t suffer from the bloated pontoon shape of many larger cars. Or even the Rambler, whose inverted bathtub shape made it 2.5 inches wider.
Of course, it helped that the Studebaker’s styling by Raymond Loewy’s consulting firm was well crafted. That showed up in details such as the wheel openings, which looked as good in 1964 as they did 11 years earlier.
There’s only so much you do to an aging design
Despite all those things going for the Hawk, it still couldn’t quite keep up with the pace of change in the auto industry. Part of the problem was its teardrop shape. That may have been trendy in the early-50s, but by the mid-60s it had been eclipsed by coke-bottle shapes. Studebaker’s own 1963-64 Avanti was a particularly good example of the latter (go here).
Perhaps the worse aspect of the teardrop shape was that by the early-60s the cowl was too tall and the windshield too small. As we have previously discussed, the Hawk looked old hat compared to the Ford Thunderbird’s low, flat cowl and large windshield. Studebaker family cars were given a more modern A-pillar design, but the automaker apparently couldn’t also afford to do so with the Hawk.
Another major deficiency was the placement of bumpers at the base of the body. By the early-60s the new trend was to move them higher up on the body. A design proposal by Brooks Stevens managed to retain the front fenders but move the bumper up. Unfortunately, that never reached production.
One could also complain about the Hawk’s lack of a step-down chassis. Studebaker partially got around that by adding foot wells in the back seat. However, the otherwise flat floor and high seating arguably worked against the sporty image the Hawk was trying to achieve.
Hawk had one small victory before fading away
I think it fair to say that the Hawk faded away. When it was given a final major facelift in 1962, production jumped to more than 9,000 units. However, in 1963 it fell almost in half to roughly 4,600 units and then to under 1,800 units in an abbreviated 1964 run.
That’s the bad news. The good news was that in both 1963 and 1964 the Hawk actually outsold the spanking-new Avanti. Indeed, in 1964 the Hawk’s output was more than double the Avanti’s.
Of course, those were small numbers (1,767 versus 809 units). And it would make sense that the Hawk would sell better. In 1964 its listed price was just under $3,000 whereas the Avanti’s was a pricey $4,445. The Hawk was competing against the likes of the Plymouth Sport Fury and Pontiac GTO whereas the Avanti was going up against the Thunderbird and Buick Riviera.
Even so, a poorer-quality design would not have lasted nearly as long as the Hawk’s. It’s just too bad that Studebaker was too cash-strapped to keep the car even a wee bit more current. As Ford illustrated with the Thunderbird, there was money to be made with distinctive two-door “personal coupes” (go here for further discussion).
NOTES:
Product specifications, prices and production figures are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006) and Flory (2004, 2009). Our featured car was about to be auctioned at an annual car show at the LeMay Collections at Marymount.
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, Ill.
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2004. American Cars, 1960-1972. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- ——; 2009. American Cars, 1946-1959: Every Model, Year by Year. McFarland & Co.
BROCHURES & ADVERTISEMENTS:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Studebaker Hawk (1964)
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- Milwaukee Art Museum Brooks Stevens Archives
OK, full disclosure, I own a 1964 R1 Hawk. Yes, the design was based on the original 1953 coupe. However, IMHO, the ’64 was a sharp, classic, design that has aged very well. Brooks Stevens overhauled the Hawk in 1962 on the cheap but the V-8 (also available with a supercharger), 4-speed, disk front brakes, good instrumentation, and posi rear end did present a sharp package (one that I would hardly label a “teardrop” shape???). I think the car has aged much better than its competitors including the T-Bird and Chrysler products, although admittedly the Riviera and Pontiac Gran Prix were sharp designs. I get many positive comments on my car and people remark on its classic style.
Michael, at Indie Auto we don’t weigh in on whether a car is a good collectible. Our focus is on historical analysis, e.g., how did a car do in the marketplace? The Hawk saw its sales drop off in 1963-64 to the point where Studebaker did not continue producing the car when the South Bend plant was closed. That’s a historical fact.
That doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy a Hawk as a collectible. Lots of people appreciate cars that didn’t sell very well. We like what we like — and no one can tell us otherwise. But that’s a different discussion than what I have initiated.
On the topic of teardrop shapes, I’m talking about the arc of the beltline. If you look at the side of the Hawk, the beltline curves much more dramatically downward toward the rear of the car than was typical in newer 1960s designs — such as the Avanti (go here for further discussion):
The Gran Turismo Hawk- the commercials referred to it as the “Gran Turismo” not Hawk had a certain mix of modern and retro styling that could hold its own with the European touring cars of the day such as Aston-Martin and Facel Vega. Of course it was nowhere close in terms of interior appointments and technological advance. As I’m typing this, I’m looking at the above photo. A little work with the roofline and it would make a great Bentley Continental.
Having owned a ’56 Power Hawk, my father having a ’57 Silver Hawk and a ’62 Gran Turismo and now owning the Hawk’s predecessor, a ’53 Starlight Coupe, having been interested in them for all except the first few years of my life – plus many miles driving them and “getting” them – l feel that l can comment on this.
The teardrop shape was still apparently relevant a decade from ’53, as it was certainly used successfully by Ford on the ’61-63 Thunderbird – albeit with flatter hood and trunk lid than the Hawk “inherited” as you pointed out.
The ’64 GT Hawk only “competed” with the GTO for a matter of what – 3 months? – and l’m not that sure you “get” Hawks! Most – and certainly GTs – were much more a personal car, not as much a muscle car. The average Hawk 0-60 times were 10-11 seconds, not sub 8 seconds.
Most folks looking to buy a GT Hawk were looking for personal elegance and distinctiveness, a not a car like a Plymouth Sport Fury which looked pretty much like every other full size Plymouth hardtop. l phoned a friend of mine to ask if my thinking on this was “off”, but he agreed with me. People buying Hawks wanted distinction.
And further: when the elegant and personal ’70 Monte Carlo debuted, it followed Studebaker’s “formula” in that if you took of the elegant body, you’d find the chassis of a Chevelle Malibu. If you take off the body of any V8 Hawk, you find the chassis of a 120 inch-wheelbase President. People who bought GTs and Monte Carlos were looking for a car more elegant and distinctive than the “standard bread-and-butter” model’s bodies. Same with Mustangs and Falcons to an extent.
The GT and Monte Carlo were both sort of “poor man’s Thunderbird” if l can put it that way. The guy who was satisfied with an Impala bought one despite it looking like the million other Impalas made that year. Hawks and Monte Carlos appealed more to another type of person. Were you mainly thinking of similar pricing of the Plymouth?
I believe that the GT Hawk production was not reinstated in Canada in late ’64 because the Corporation’s board was hell-bent on a cleanly-as-possible dissolution of auto production. The trucks and the GTs were likely profitable in South Bend at low production, but their unique parts and assembly were an unwanted complication to the much smaller Canadian operation. And – who knows the condition of the old dies?
Your point about “high seating” made me stop and think. In my former Power Hawk and my Starlight Coupe, my legs were/are darned near straight out in front of me! How much lower do you want it?
I measured, today, the height of my Starlight’s bench seat from the floor. It is barely 10 inches – without the compression of any weight! l also measured my Murano and it’s about 12 1/2 inches – which is the SAME as the seats in my ’60 Lark with individual fronts (not buckets). My friend’s 2014 Corolla measures 11 1/12 inches. l see from your photo of the blue ’64 GT that the front seats look plenty high, but most Hawk and Coupe front seating was, by measurement quite low, it seems to me. Perhaps GTs are different but l don’t have one handy to measure!
Seating is not a big point for sure, but l’ll take any “point” to prove that Studebaker was not as old fashioned/obsolete/irrelevant as too many people seem to think.
l enjoy your articles and thank you for them.
If you reread that part of my story you will see that I made reference to the GTO in the context of price comparisons between the Hawk and Avanti. The two were in very different strata when it came to halo coupes. Nice strawman, though.
Even if the Studebaker board had been hellbent on phasing out automobile production, it would have made sense to keep producing the Hawk if volume had been reasonable. After all, it was a higher-profit car than entry-level Challengers. However, for 1964 Hawks represented only 3.7 percent of Studebaker’s production. That was a meaningful drop from the previous two years even though the automaker’s total passenger-car output had fallen by more than half.
The bottom line was that regardless of the Hawk’s charms — stylistic or mechanical — it was no longer selling well enough to be viable.
Studebaker was dead going into the 1964 model year. The board wanted out of South Band and its expensive overhead and labor costs. There was no money for even minor sheet metal changes for the Hawk.
Langworth reported that the Hawk received minor changes. The most significant sheetmetal difference was a new trunk lid that removed the deck ribbing that had been there since 1956 — and the massive piece of trim that had covered it since 1962. Perhaps to compensate for the plainer look, the taillight housings were chromed up (my least-favorite change). Meanwhile, up front the side grilles were slightly revised and an optional landau vinyl half roof was offered for the first time. On the inside, the instrument panel face switched from wood grain to matte black (but not the portion of the dash surrounding the radio).