1. Home
  2. Studebaker Autos
  3. Hemmings Classic Car scores again...

Hemmings Classic Car scores again...

The next issue of Hemmings Classic Car (cover date July 2006) arrived in today's mail. Therein is a nice feature article on a 1964 Daytona Convertible, written by a David LaChance. The photographs are beautiful, as would be expected from photographer Roy Query. The car is a red, Hamilton-produced convertible with black bucket seat interior.

289/2bbl, column Flightomatic.

There's a few details amiss, including GT-Hawk R/W/B chevrons on the front fenders where the "8" badge should be, and the side trim has had the black insert replaced with either white paint or is polished aluminum (hard to tell, but it sure isn't black). The black interior trim panels on the doors and rear quarters have had white inserts placed in the center third of what were originally all-black panels. Overall, though, the car looks very nice and makes a good presentation.

However, the text accuracy leaves a LOT to be desired. Mr. LaChance should have run it past someone with a little more Studebaker background. Among the "facts" you'll learn when you read this piece are:

  1. The base engine for all 1964 Daytonas except the hardtop was the
180HP, 259 CID OHV Skybolt Six inline engine that had been around since 1961. (Yep, that's exactly what it says.)

  1. The flathead six for the 1959 Lark was reduced to 159.6 cubic inches.

  2. Brooks Stevens did wonders for the 1962 Lark when he removed the wrap-around windshield and lightened up the window frames in the upper body structure.

  1. Byers Burlingame oversaw the transfer of all 1964 production to the export plant in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. (Funny, I thought it was the Canadian Assembly facility for the Canadian market - I never knew it was an export plant!)

  2. Only 2 dozen 1964 Daytona buyers opted for Avanti engines. (Geeze, I'm sure I have seen that many Avanti-powered 1964 Daytonas in my lifetime...does that mean I've seen ALL the originals and several clones to boot? Quite a feat!)

  1. First-generation Mustangs routinely trade for twice the price of comparable 1964 Daytonas. (Tried to buy the nicest '64 Daytona convertible in the country for less than ,000 lately? I guess that means the nicest base-engine vanilla '65 Mustang convertible will go for over ,000. Yeah, right...)

  2. The long-wheelbase 1964 Cruiser and Daytona models made up less than
10% of 1964 production. (Implied is that all 1964 Daytonas were on the long wheelbase.)

Well, there's more, but that's a good sample.

Elsewhere in this issue, they have an article on bargain collector convertibles of which you can still buy nice examples under $10,000. One example are 1962 Studebaker Daytona convertibles, ALL of which [they report] were equipped with V-8 engines! Must have been a nice engine transplant on display at South Bend 2002; the beautiful

6-cylinder Daytona convertible on the show field.

Well, 'back to reading the July 2006 Hemmings Classic Car...there's lots more to learn, apparently. BP

Reply to
bobcaripalma
Loading thread data ...

Well crap! That means I'll never get what I want out of my 62 Daytona, "500 Festival Car Clone" Oh well, I'll just have to drive the POS into the ground! I did confirm the 65 Cruiser I bought as a parts car, which had a 259 in line 6 and a flight-o-matic, was/is a fresh rebuild Spoke to the previous owner, and he found receipts for the engine work. (after he sold me the whole car for cheap)

Jim Turner

Reply to
Jim Turner

Jeff Koch, the hemmings west coast guy, was at the AOAI meet in Palm Springs 2 weeks ago. He took a bunch of pix - said they were to be included in a big Studebaker Issue coming up soon!

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff Grohs

Reply to
bobcaripalma

Yep... "Journalism, the world's dumbest profession."

JT

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

Reply to
Grumpy AuContraire

When people come in to do research at the SDAM library, I point them to AQ, tell the to hweck following issues for corrections and let them at it. Everything else is suspect, with the exception of a few writers like B R Kimes, but she has probably dropped the ball once or twice.

(I don't want anyone writing to say that her name is Kymes.)

Karl

Reply to
midlant

David LaChance emailed me on April 13 wanting to know more about the 64 convertibles and SDC as he was writing an article for Classic Car. He also wanted someone to review his story before printing. I copied several things and mailed them to him offering to preview and put him in contact with other knowledgeable Stude folks. I never got a reply. If the magazine is already out the article must have been in the can before he even asked. Kind of ticks me off. The 24 Avanti powered cars may have come from me but evidently he didn't specify 64 US made convertible. There were 12 R2's and 12 R1's made of which 6 of each were clasified as full package cars. Denny L

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

Reply to
lockmon

BobC, why don't you forward your post with observations onto the magazine?

Frank Starr

Reply to
fstarr

Frank: It's Bob P [Palma], not C . Easy to misstype; no problem.

Denny: Sorry David LaChance failed to use your proof-reading services. His serious loss.

Yes, I will intend to write the magazine with these and other observations, Frank. The two glamour Hemmings magazines have become downright sloppy in their fact-checking. 'Way to much of this is getting in print. If they want younger people in the hobby -don't we all?- we owe it to them to report accurate history.

Another example in this same issue, wherein 1958 Fords are discussed. A caption refers to "The Y-block engine" when, in fact, the photo is either a 332 or 352 engine, not a Y-block. The only Y-block available in 1958 Fords was the trusty 292, and the photo is clearly NOT a 292.

The text continues the error, discussing "the new Y-block 332 and 352 engines for 1958." The 332 and 352 FE engines are NOT Y-block engines; even Ford never referred to them as such. Ford was so proud of the Y-block idea that the little V-8 emblems used in 1954-1956 on the outside of the cars were even shaped like a "V" superimposed on a "Y".

Cheers. BP

Reply to
bobcaripalma

Nope, Denny; he did not qualify his 2-dozen number by specifying convertibles or package cars or anything else; he just flat said "only

2 dozen Daytona buyers opted for Avanti engines." Bummer. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. BP
Reply to
bobcaripalma

Indeed, Denny, if LaChance was in touch with you, he had every opportunity to get it right through extensive proof-reading and checking. He and/or /Hemmings simply didn't care enough to go through the procedure, period.

Maybe 20 years ago, our own authority Fred Fox wrote an article on 1963 R-powered Larks for Special Interest Autos. Even FRED asked that I and one other person review his text! Imagine that; Fred Fox requesting reviews by other Stude folks! But I did find one minor item and he was glad that was detected before it went to print.

It's all a matter of caring enough and wanting your material to be as accurate as possible without letting your ego get in the way of those goals. To wit: When I write my letter to Hemmings about this, I will ask Richard Quinn to review it before I send it! Cheers. Bob.

Reply to
bobcaripalma

Heh... Perhaps you might compare 'em with being the automotive equivalent of the National Inquirer. You know... The check and recheck and recheck their "facts."

JT

Reply to
Grumpy AuContraire

Some time ago, one of these new Hemmings magazines did an extensive Studebaker article with many errors in it. I recall discussing it with Bob P. I sent a list of corrections to the article to Hemmings. I stated that if I find all of these errors in a Studebaker article and errors in other articles on cars that I am not as familiar with, how can I trust anything that they state in their articles? I don't remember them publishing my letter, but I did get a response. They said that in the future they would send Studebaker articles to me to proof read (I offered this service for free.). I have not heard from them since. I guess that it was just a wise axx response. My solution is that I am letting my subcriptions to three Hemmings publications expire.

Reply to
studegary

I sent an email to LaChance yesterday asking if he got the information that I had sent to him and asked if he still planned to call me. I didn't say I knew the article was already out. No reply so far. Denny L

Reply to
lockmon

As the owner of the 64 convertible, Bordeaux red, by the way, and a former journalist (degree in Journalism and 10 years in the field) all I can say is what, I think, Mae West, said, "I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right." Well he spelled "Studebaker" right and we got a gorgeous spread on my favorite model Studebaker. I am thrilled with it and play on spreading it around, warts and all.

D>I sent an email to LaChance yesterday asking if he got the information

Reply to
Don Smith

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.