Monday Museum Musings

Yesterday, as a delayed Fathers Day gift my wonderful wife and I took her parents to the AACA Museum in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Her father is a big Studebaker fan and the museum is currently hosting a large Studebaker exhibit. Although my wife and I are museum members the nearly 200-mile round trip keeps us from visiting more often than we do.

Perhaps the big highlight for me was seeing the Studebaker Sceptre concept car in person for the first time. The car is on loan to the AACA Museum from the Studebaker museum in South Bend, Indiana. Without further ado:



By the way, showing photos in this blog is why I am glad I still use a desktop computer with a big monitor. I’m sorry, but you just can’t appreciate photos from the screen of a smartphone.

I think Brooks Stevens was a genius. After his death in 1995 the New York Times called him “a major force in industrial design.” Another great Stevens design was the Studebaker Gran Turismo Hawk. In the bottom most of the four photos above you can see the red ’64 in the upper left. Here are some better pictures:



This is probably the finest GT Hawk I’ve ever seen. Stevens redesigned the Hawk, by this time a dated looking car, for a pittance and came up with a car that still looks good today. Tell me why I’ve left the GT Hawk out of both Ultimate Garages…

The AACA Museum is also hosting a small Pontiac exhibit that includes three GTOs. The only one of real interest to me is this one, a 1964 model.



It means nothing to anyone else, but I find something interesting in the fact that the last model year for the Studebaker GT Hawk is the same as the first year for the Pontiac GTO, 1964. I was just a wee lad, but I was alive at that time.

We all had a marvelous time. Kudos to Bill and to Warren, two volunteers at the museum who were so generous with their time and knowledge.










If you like this blog please tell your friends and share the blog URL ( Thanks.




More For Monday

OK, as you can guess whatever interest I have in elections lies in the data. From this August article on comes this chart:


Midterm Election Results

This chart shows the number of seats in the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate that the president’s party won or lost during midterm elections dating back to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 Year  President  Party   House   Senate  Total 
1934 Franklin D. Roosevelt D +9 +9 +18
1938 Franklin D. Roosevelt D -71 -6 -77
1942 Franklin D. Roosevelt D -55 -9 -64
1946 Harry S. Truman D -45 -12 -57
1950 Harry S. Truman D -29 -6 -35
1954 Dwight D. Eisenhower R -18 -1 -19
1958 Dwight D. Eisenhower R -48 -13 -61
1962 John F. Kennedy D -4 +3 -1
1966 Lyndon B. Johnson D -47 -4 -51
1970 Richard Nixon R -12 +2 -10
1974 Gerald R. Ford R -48 -5 -63
1978 Jimmy Carter D -15 -3 -18
1982 Ronald Reagan R -26 +1 -25
1986 Ronald Reagan R -5 -8 -13
1990 George Bush R -8 -1 -9
1994 William J. Clinton D -52 -8 -60
1998 William J. Clinton D +5 0 +5
2002 George W. Bush R +8 +2 +10
2006 George W. Bush R -30 -6 -36
2010 Barack Obama D -63 -6 -69
2014 Barack Obama D -13 -9 -21


The lesson? Regardless of party, whichever one won the Presidency will almost certainly lose Congressional seats in the midterm election. I don’t watch CNN or MSNBC or Fox News or network news so I don’t know if this FACT has been reported; I doubt it, but it sure seems relevant to me. Do I have a prediction? I don’t know enough to make one, but the history sure seems clear. (Update: regular reader Philip Maynard has commented that the “news” networks are “reporting” this general trend in midterms. However, I suspect that regardless of ideological slant the reporting comes with an agenda and is not “just the facts.”)


Thanks to 56packardman for posting links to this blog on other car sites when relevant. I will return the favor and post a link to a piece that I found quite interesting, the subject of which was Studebaker and not Packard.

From the article comes this picture:

I don’t know the year, but it looks like a 1964-66 Studebaker Cruiser four-door sedan. As regular readers know my interests are almost exclusively in two-door vehicles, but this car’s history overcomes that for me. More from this post by 56packardman:

“As we have covered previously, Studebaker found itself on the ropes yet again after the 1959 Lark briefly saved the company. Studebaker had been in decline since the badly botched introduction of its 1953 line. In 1961 the Studebaker board brought in Sherwood Egbert to end auto production. Instead, he mounted a Churchillian effort to revive the company’s car business. While the effort didn’t save the company, it did result in some of the most memorable cars Studebaker ever built: the Gran Turismo Hawk and the Avanti. Egbert brought Brooks Stevens on board to re-make the cars and Raymond Loewy was tasked with the project that yielded the Avanti. Stevens worked miracles with almost no money on the passenger car bodies. Over three model years, he grafted enough new sheet metal onto the cars that the 1964s looked like they were an all-new design. Stevens’ re-working of the Hawk produced one of the finest designs of the ’60s with the bonus to Studebaker of the ’62 Gran Turismo Hawk costing the company $28 a car less to produce than the ’61 model. Bean counters today would be pleased with the $28 per car savings, but in 1960’s dollars, this was a very significant cost reduction. Despite the lower cost, the car looked new and fresh – and the design has aged well. Stevens’ Gran Turismo Hawk, like the Robert Bourke-designed Starliner hardtop coupe it is based on, is still a very handsome automobile.”


“Necessity is the mother of invention” is a famous saying. Studebaker made some remarkable cars in the early 1960s, but was doomed anyway. If you build a better mousetrap the world will not necessarily beat a path to your door.





For Philip Maynard:

From a picture of the “Hanky Panky” by Bruce Geisler.



Mittwoch Musings

October 10?! Once again, Mittwoch (“Middle of the Week”) is the German/Yiddish word for Wednesday.

Based on the specific “referrals” to the site, and as far as I can surmise, yesterday’s out of context post title (Mutant Zombies) may have attracted one or two readers who might not otherwise have read Disaffected Musings. Were any regular readers put off by the title?


From Ambrose Bierce: “A conservative is a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a liberal who wishes to replace them with other evils.”

Bierce also said, “Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.”

Bierce was a renowned writer/poet and a journalist who served in the Union Army for virtually the entire Civil War. In late 1913 he traveled to Mexico in an attempt to experience the Mexican Revolution first-hand. He was never seen again.


Even noted finance publication Barron’s has taken note of the restomod industry. Long-time friend and Disaffected Musings reader Robert sent me this link. The article is about restomod Mustangs by a company called Revology founded by Tom Scarpello, a long-time auto industry veteran. What I found interesting and amusing is that the tone of this article makes it seem like Scarpello invented the idea of the restomod, even though that actual word is not used. Of course, restomods have been around a long time. Maybe people who read Barron’s have no idea.


I’m still in a moratorium on writing about or showing C2 Corvettes. (Technically, I guess I just violated the moratorium.) I have been re-reading More Than They Promised, a history of Studebaker, by Thomas Bonsall. If I didn’t want to push away the rapidly increasing number of readers I would show a lot of charts from the book. These charts, on things like sales data and assets, fascinate me, but I’m more than a bit of an oddball as any regular reader knows.

Five-ish years ago I would not have had any interest in a car like this:

This is a photo (by yours truly) of a 1932 “custom” Studebaker St. Regis. By custom I mean the car has a non-standard body that includes extra-long doors. Most people think of Studebaker as a lower-price make and, of course, that was the reality for much of Studebaker’s existence. However, the real world is almost always more complicated than our distillations of it. People who engage in what I call impossible distillations of reality are usually off the mark.

This car is quite handsome in person, but one would not expect to see too many museum pieces in a state of squalor. Once again, if you are a car aficionado please do all that you can, within your means, to support the hobby. That might include membership in an automobile museum.

October 10?!





Sunday Studebaker

From this post comes this observation:


Studebaker’s V-8 was one of the best engines of the era. We have pointed out in previous posts that it had one major design factor that severely limited Studebaker’s ability to expand it: the bore center spacing was such that the engine could not practically be expanded beyond 289 cubic inches. We perceive of that now as being a flaw in the design, but we need to understand the engineers’ reasons for designing the engine as they did. The engineers DELIBERATELY designed the engine to be limited in displacement. Deliberately?!

Yes, because South Bend’s engine engineers had counted on postwar predictions from General Motors Research Labs that future gasoline octane ratings would soon rise above that of aviation fuel. Charles Kettering, GM’s research boss, saw higher octane ratings and higher engine compression ratios as the next big thing.

Studebaker bought into that and developed its postwar V-8 so it would accept compression ratios of up to 14:1. The idea was to increase engine power and efficiency by progressively raising compression rather than by expanding displacement. Unfortunately for Studebaker, the oil companies didn’t go along with Kettering’s vision, automotive octane numbers stayed flat, and Studebaker was left holding the small-displacement bag.”


Besides noting that history is replete with examples of the folly of human beings trying to predict the future, even when the arena is at least partially under human control, think about the ramifications of this point. Studebaker was in no position to cover the waterfront; that is, it did not have the resources to design multiple V-8 blocks. Chevrolet/GM could develop a small-block and big-block V-8 with different overall exterior dimensions, including different bore center spacing, and not just different displacements. Studebaker could not afford that approach.

I have a graduate degree in Economics (which, at this point, will get me breakfast at McDonald’s as long as I also have $5). Once an industry begins to shake out in terms of market share—and luck/stochastic variation can play a large role in that process—it can be virtually impossible for those firms with smaller share to ever gain market power. Market share begets more market share. Once the US auto industry developed into The Big Three and everyone else, and this happened sooner than most people realize, the demise of the Independents may simply have become inevitable. (For model year 1941, the last full year of production before World War II, all of the top eight makes in terms of production were Big Three makes.)

“A thing of beauty is a joy forever, its loveliness increases. It will never pass into nothingness…”

– John Keats

See the source image

From a picture of a Studebaker Avanti.

See the source image

From a picture of a Studebaker Commander Starliner coupe.

From Keats again, “A thing of beauty is a joy forever, its loveliness increases. It will never pass into nothingness…”


If you’re here from a link at the Studebaker Drivers Club, welcome. Please feel free to bookmark the link to this blog:

Not all of the posts are about Studebaker, but a lot of the posts are about automobiles.