You're talking in circles.
Lee
> So if it's your car and your choice of course I agree. So why not
> influence the young and old to honor the pure when ever possible. There
> are plenty of Studes out there that it would be nearly impossible to
> restore... go ahead and chop and swap or what ever. But then there are
> still some factory pure stuff that ought to stay that way.
What I am trying to say is there is plenty of junk out there that can be
modified. It just breaks my heart to see a stock piece of history in
good condition not restored to represent times and craftsmanship of
another time.
One sure way to keep the past is to help those just starting out
appreciate the engineering and talent it takes to restore a vintage
automobile.
Jeff Rice - 13 Sep 2005 11:51 GMT
Actually, it takes a stern discipline to restore a vehicle 'only' to
'stock', and go no further than the original manufacturers' intent, which
was budget driven, production driven, and limited to the technology of the
day. Studebakers are easy to restore. Just follow the manual and build
sheet. Studebakers are hard to restore when it comes to the 'correct' item
that is needed.
Your concern, so plainly written, is that a rarity should be kept 'as is',
which in many cases is indeed the thing to do.
Your lumping everything else into a junk category shows a narrow view of
this hobby.
That'll make the narrow view club meetings fun, but won't do a damned thing
to bring new blood into the hobby.
Guess that doesn't concern you though.
Kind of sad in a way.
Jeff
"Dolphin" wrote...
> What I am trying to say is there is plenty of junk out there that can be
> modified. It just breaks my heart to see a stock piece of history in
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> appreciate the engineering and talent it takes to restore a vintage
> automobile.
John Poulos - 13 Sep 2005 15:25 GMT
On one thing we can agree, it breaks my heart too, I feel the same
way about other matters of personal taste. I'd rather see a rough car
rodded and I'd rather not see a bunch of factory accessories screwed
onto a 53-54 C-K. In both cases, I can only hope that my opinion might
'save' the car, but it's the owners opinion that counts.
> What I am trying to say is there is plenty of junk out there that can be
> modified. It just breaks my heart to see a stock piece of history in
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> appreciate the engineering and talent it takes to restore a vintage
> automobile.

Signature
JP/Maryland
Studebaker On the Net http://stude.com
My Ebay items:http://www.stude.com/EBAY/
64 R2 4 speed Challenger (Plain Wrapper)
63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk
62 Lark 2 door
61 Hawk
60? Hawk
53 Starlight
Dolphin - 14 Sep 2005 04:50 GMT
I did not mean 'junk' as a derogatory term. I love junk. I also seldom have
the discipline to keep it totally pure and stock. I recently bought a 2r11 3/4
ton pickup with the intention of doing a NAPCO style conversion using slightly
more modern components but still maintaining the look and feel of 1953.
A voice in one ear says keep it stock and pure from 6 volt flat head six to 3spd
od and manual steering. On the other shoulder I hear power steering, power
brakes, 12volt modern radio, fuel injection, turbocharger, etc.
At any rate if I want it to remain my daily driver I'm going to have to replace
the multi part rims and bias ply tube tires. The Timken rear axle is sorely in
need of rebuilding. Do I cheat and put in a dana 60? If so do I retain the six
lug or go eight? Disc brakes would be nice. A larger fuel tank so I don't have
to be constantly reminded of what gas costs.
So I push the clutch to the floor pull the choke and start her up. Sneak out on
to the freeway listen to the flat head six come to life, ease up on the
accelerator and head toward 60 mph as the od kicks in. Then ponder the last
time I had a blow out with tube type tires...
Put a drag link on wrong on an old Mercedes and drove in circles too