1929 Studebaker President 8 Roadster

[Touts]

Thank you Gunsmoke, 

Let me first say that I am more confused about what I thought was simply a RHD 1929 Studebaker President 8 Roadster.

 

I believe that original Studebaker records may be scarce however this vehicle has seemed to survive in remarkable “Very Basic” condition for its E90 year age considering where it was made and where it is now and everything in between.

 

I believe at this stage it is, sort of what it was , though I would have preferred it to have some identification .... and some of the missing bits.

 

At the end of the day,  it will be a cool ride to grab a coffee at the local cafe at the beginning of the day.🤔

 

I seem to be confused as to what is an “All Seasons Roadster” that has, crudely,  a “Bump” near the rear “Dicky” seat and mine and some others on the web do not have the “Bump”. 

 

I thank you all for your contributions and I’m optimistic the answer is out there.

 

In the morning I will take some photos of the Steering area in an attempt  to confirm that the car was switched from a LHD / RHD car or if it was an Argentine special .

Frank

[edinmass]

The Gemmer 205 series steering boxes were made in both left and right had drive applications. They were only available for two years, and there were issues with them when new. Pierce Arrow, Stutz, L-29 Cord, and Studebaker were the main installers of the 205 box. The steering wheel center on the car in the post looks modified also. Casting numbers on the box should ID it’s application when new.......or if it has been changed out, where it came from. Usually under dash components are designed to be symmetrical left to right. That goes for the brackets under dash, transmission bell housing, emergency brake, ect. With decent detailed photos posted here, we should be easily able to determine what is correct and what has been modified. So, please! Post more detailed photos of all aspects of the car. Best, Ed

[8E45E]

5 hours ago, Touts said:

This information allows me to think about what restoration level and direction I need to carry out.

 

How about THIS level of restoration?

 

Craig

[edinmass]

Front top seat back looks like it was made after the car was built, and the top irons and bows don’t look as I would expect them to be...........the rumble seat area doesn’t have drain channels, and the hardware looks later/incorrect. Yet overall the lines seem very good..."..this car will have an interesting story to tell..........

[Touts]

I’m not too sure about the modifications to the rear Rumble Seat area based on other cars I’ve seen on the Web.

 

You may be correct though as specific identification has not been forthcoming or confirmed.

 

The period car with the Pagoda building in the background , (photo attached) is still giving me hope making me lean to believe that there are models similar to mine out there but the wheelbase has got me completely stuffed though.

 

The level of restoration could be linked to global pandemic stability.🤬

 

I will post additional specific photos as requested shortly, thank you all.

frank

 

[Mark Huston]

Your measurement of the wheelbase, if correct, of 131 inches, would make your car chassis a 1928.   Also, the fact that you have a President FB engine also points to a 1928.  The FB engine was introduced mid year 1928 when the shorter wheelbase FB President chassis was introduced.   Starting with the mid year 1928 President models the FB engine was used and there were two President available the 131 and 121 inch chasses.   Only on the 121 inch chassis could you get the roadster body style.  

 

Here are pictures of an old friends 1928 FB roadster.  Yes, it is the same car in two different paint jobs.  The all black was the first time he restored the car and then later repainted it red and back.   You will notice the difference in the belt line and overall body lines compared to your car.   Also, in 1928 all FB roadsters did not have side mount spares - just rear mounted spare tire.   It was not until the introduction of the FE/FH Presidents in 1929 that the roadster had side mount spare tires.  

[Mark Huston]

I previously owned a 1928 FA President 1st series.   The 1928 FA President was built on the 131 inch wheelbase chassis.    Here are pictures of that car for comparison to your 131 inch chassis roadster.

[Mark Huston]

Here is a front end shot of the 1928 President FB roadster and my 1928 FA President when we toured together on a stop in the woods of Oregon.  

[nzcarnerd]

This thread has been a very interesting read. It highlights the frequent specification changes that Studebaker made in that era. Anybody who has a copy of the Crestline book "Studebaker  Cars" by James H Moloney will know what I mean. The book has many confusing and mis-labelled photos.

 

I have just purchased the Dictator GE cabriolet (non-folding top) which I enquired about in this post a few weeks ago. I think it is probably quite a rare car in right hand drive. It is several hundred miles away but my son - who fixes old cars for a living - flew up to see it and spent several hours going over it in detail. Now I just need to get it shipped home.  If anyone knows of the owner of another Dictator cabriolet I would be interested to make contact.

 

[mike6024]

[Buffalowed Bill]

Touts,

 

You've gotten the attention of a very select group of the Studebaker community. There are so few survivors of the short wheel base cars that any evidentiary information is in short supply and in the hands of a few owners and historians. In this thread you have tapped into a major portion of that knowledge base. Suffice it to say that by the time you are able to recognize exactly what you have and how the car became what it is, you will know much of what there is to know-you will be an expert.

 

As far as the the short WB, FB, there are so few survivors that few will ever see one. I agree with Ed when he says "what ever the car was and now is, it’s going to be an interesting story. Overall the car has a very nice look." Someone out there is going to know this car. With all of the alterations I think it's more important to try to find out how it got to this point, rather then worrying about what it isn't now. People love a good story and this is a good one. You have my attention!

 

Bill

 

•  

[29StudiePrez]

Frank,

I went back to look at your photo when you were taking the wheelbase measurement because something looked off about your hubcaps. I zoomed in and instead of the "S" hubcap that would have been on the car it looks like the rectangle metal tag the is supposed to be on the right side of the dash has been used for the center of your hubcap. Are all your hubcaps like this? If you read closely you will see it says "Body by Studebaker". Studebaker would not have put "body by Studebaker" on the hubcap. There were two metal tags like this that were placed on the dash, one should say the name of the Model. You would have had a tag that says President, the tag that says "Body by Studebaker" would have been mounted at the far right side of the dash. Can you tell us what all the other hubcaps say? 

The photo you posted of the car with  the Pagoda in the background is the 1929 Indy 500 pace car. They only made 5 of these and had the large brake drums and hubcaps. They were on a 125" wheelbase as were all the Roadsters for 1929 and 1930. And they're rumble seats were just like those of the other ones i posted.

Also in speaking with several other owners of these years, the general consensus is Studebaker never made a 131" wheelbase roadster. The President Roadsters were always on the smaller President frames. This would mean yours if a true factory Roadster would have only been built on the 121" wheelbase.

So this has us back at square one in trying to identify your car. So this is what we do know. You have a 131" frame. You have a "FB" engine which is the motor that would have been in the 1928 President. There were no 131" Roadsters built. Your golf door on the body is incorrect, in the wrong place and is the wrong shape. The distance between where the rumble seat lid closes and where the edge of the top is, is too wide and not original to the Roadster body. You rumble seat lid has none of the U shaped water drain channels it should have on the edges of the body where the lid closes. And all the previous things already mentioned regarding the body features of what should be a LHD car vs RHD. Your dash is consistent with the large President Sedans and the Tourer. So, if Studebaker never built a 131" Roadster the question is did someone take a 121" FB Roadster body and modify it to fit on the longer wheelbase FA frame. In zooming in on one of the pics of you car I noticed what appears to be several body stress cracks, possibly body filler, and also the edge of the sheet metal where it meets with the framed wood area would not have been cut like this, the body metal edge would have rolled up over that wood and covered it and there would be metal snaps along the metal edge to snap the top to. 

More research into your car is definitely worth it to know what you have, what was done to it, and what the truth is, so you know how to proceed in fixing it up, and you can pass on the true history of the car to the next owner. If its original then discover that truth, if its a modification from one of the past owners in the 70s or 80s who was maybe trying to save the body of a roadster he found and found a FA President frame to put it on, then it is what it is and then you restore it back to late 1928/29 Standards with the original headlights, cowl lights, hubcaps etc that it would have had on it. But at least at the end of the day, you know, or have a reasonable idea of how the car came about being what it is. Don't be "that guy" in the old car hobby who has a modified or fabricated car who tries to convince everyone else its a rare "One Only" of of one that is special and no one else has or was ever built again. There was a 1929 Commander Tourer that was being sold from a guy in Canada back in 1984. The person he bought the car from in Pennsylvania had modified the '29 Tourer back in the 60s by adding a second cowl, thus giving it that "Dual Cowl Phaeton" look. Studebaker never made a dual cowl Phaeton and if they had, they would have done it on the larger FE President chassis not a 120" Commander chassis. Anyway, we both knew this but it was a nice looking car and I missed out on buying it in time to a retired Ohio police officer and hobbyist. The car eventually ended up in the hands of a well known U.S. East Cost restoration shop that did a body off on it and advertised and put it up for Auction as a One of a Kind only Dual Cowl Phaeton ever built, documented history etc. Blah, blah, he even went so far as to claim it was verified by the National Studebaker Museum, the only one ever built. All total 100% bullshit. Even though I had told him the history of the car as I had been told by the previous owners I stayed in contact with. Anyway, the Auction hkuse never verified anything and took his story and ran with it on the Auction block. So a restored 1929 Commander Tourer with a modified and added piece of metal with an extra windshield got passed off as something it wasn't and the new owner ended up paying $120k for a $15k car. So wherever the truth leads you about how your car came about being and what it is now vs what it was when first made, everyone loves a good (true) car story no matter what path it took in its life, it doesn't make it any less interesting or enjoyable. Just dont be "that guy".

[Ozstatman]

Frank,

 

The BJ  auction link for Lot 152 states, for that particular car: "Exterior Color TWO TONE BLUE" and then 29StudiePrez posted "This car was originally made in America and was bought from Barrett jackson in 1997 by a collector, its obvious that it eventually got shipped to Australia". Probably wouldn't hurt to pursue BJ to get as much info out of them as you can. The Aussie collector from whose collection(extensive, 700+ plus cars) this car came from, bought cars from all over the world.

 

Also the BJ link has this: "VIN 10336", Does this number mean anything to you Stude guys?

 

[29StudiePrez]

1 hour ago, Ozstatman said:

Also the BJ link has this: "VIN 10336", Does this number mean anything to you Stude guys?

 

Ozstatman,

In an earlier post Touts said the following;

 

"The number that is located on the engine top behind the fan is  FB 10336"

 

He had also mentioned that the frame data plate that is supposed to be on the left front frame is missing, that was the serial plate and would have had a 7 digit numbers which would have also identified what Model it was. Because that plate is missing, its the "FB" engine number he does have and the fact that it is on a 131" wheelbase which lets us know at least, that it was originally a 1928 FA President. For any more clues Touts is going to have to look closely at the construction of the rear section and see how it was put together. Im sure if he ever strpped the paint to repaint it he would have a lot of his questions answered as to if the body was extanded to fit the frame. As stated earlier by a forum member, there should be water channels along the edges of the rumble seat. As it is now if he drives it in rain, all that water will go right into the back end and not run down the channels and out through drain holes at the bottom. With that said the following is just some guess work on my part, but Its possible that a past owner may have found the Roadster body missing the deck lid and that back area for some reason could have been cut out past the channels and opeing of the rumble seat opening and had a truck style bed inserted. (As I've seen done many times before with old roadster and coupe bodies) this might explain why the channels are missing. And once your going to go to that much effort to repair the roadster body and resurrect it, why not throw it on a longer frame and and extend a section of the body another 10"? That would be my guess. Also look at the last two pics I posted and compare the construction and thickness of the rumble seat lid on this car to that of a factory original lid.

Edited March 22, 2020 by 29StudiePrez (see edit history)

[Touts]

Well I must say that I’m taken back by the level of participation and quality of contributions from my first forum contribution post. I’m very great full for all your time.

 

The “So this is what we do know” as presented by 29studieprez has directed me to some areas particularly the Rear End of the car and the RHD steering box question.

 

I have this morning demolished the interior and taken some detailed pictures of the Rear End, 6 Wheels and the Steering part of the car for your Studie consideration.

The Six Wheels have the same Hub Caps.

 

I confess that when I first saw that the Accelerator Pedal was between the Clutch & Brake pedal I became concerned.

I had thought initially that this was some sort of Drink Driving prevention device😳

 

 I have no sign of Covid-19 yet and my self imposed isolation is allowing me time to assess the Studebaker in my normally hectic life.

Cheers, frank 

 

 

 

[Touts]

Hello Edinmass, I have attached photos of the steering box area as requested in the hope that I can work out what I have and what I’m going to do with it.

 

I hope that you can make some sense of it especially the Accelerator being in between the Clutch & Brake Pedals 🥴

 

I don’t suppose that you could positively confirm that the Steering was actually converted from LHD to RHD from the pictures.

 

I did quickly take a look at this area this morning and in relation to another post that the area in question was symmetrical.  

 

I suspect that attempting a conversion would not be difficult specifically from a Body perspective. Mechanically though I am waiting for your contribution with anticipation, Thank you.

frank

 

[29StudiePrez]

Frank,

I sent this discussion link to Dick Quinn who is literally an expert on Studebaker's ( he has a few years on me ..lol) because his knowledge may clear up a lot of questions on your car. I look forward to reading his imput after he has reviewed everything and had a chance to read all comments and review all the information.

 

Edited March 22, 2020 by 29StudiePrez (see edit history)

[29StudiePrez]

There's no way that accelerator pedal is factory. This is what the set up should look like, mirror image for RHD. The accelerator pedal was a forked rod that comes up through the floorboard and attaches with a clevis pin to the bottom of the long accelerator pedal as you see which was rubber over a thin piece of flat metal in the same shape. And both the clutch and brake pedals are about the same length.

[edinmass]

Steering box is a Ross. They made a good box. I’m not very familiar with 1928 Stude cars, but have worked on a handful of 1929-1932 Presidents. The more I look at the car, the more I am not certain what has been changed or modified. More photos would help, but at initial glance it appears to be a RHD box.......I have never seen a RHD Ross box in person, and 1928 is earlier than what I usually play with. So I shall study the photos some more, and look forward to more of them. 👍

[Touts]

Thank you for that StudiePrez that looks fantastic.

 

I have added additional number photos for consideration.

 

I’m still finding it difficult to comprehend the Chassis question though and why someone did what they did.... if they did.

 

let me say, that this is a “Big” Roadster car !! Its Heavy too.

 

It’s dimensions look so cool from certain perspectives and I’m waiting in anticipation for the next chapter.

 

My initial interest was just to sort it out mechanically and cruise around town in it. 

I thought it was basically original and wanted to preserve rather than  Hot Rod it.

 

Now I’m questioning everything and all options are on the table.

 

I do have some great people here in Australia 🇦🇺 some of who have assisted me in my past motor projects. I would hate to roll it back into a shed for another E90 years. I would rather drive it .

frank

[edinmass]

The 157457 is a casting number and the letters and numbers are casting date information.......I have a chart somewhere that translates the numbers. Please post photos of the pitman arm, drag link, and all the connections for the steering. It appears that the chassis was RHD from new, so a photo of the frame on the other side would be helpful to see if there is a hole for the steering box, mounts, and pitman.

[Gunsmoke]

I'm sure a Studebaker guy will be able to provide a pic of starter/accellerator set up for LHD cars. Here is what my '31 Chrysler 8cyl has. This engine has same general layout as your car's engine, starter on left side by firewall, carb on right side middle. The Chrysler folks have this rather complicated cast steel forging bolted to bell housing that carries rods for both the starter (at bottom) and accellerator (at top). Starter pedal is about center of floor board just to right of accellerator.  The starter function is simple, a springloaded pedal pressing a lever onto starter.

 

The accelerator is much more complex, with a rod crossing top of forging to the right, turning 2 further rods connected by swivels, and finally a 3rd rod going forward to carb (and a small tension spring). As if that was not enough, there are 3 more rods running from bottom of steering column back to accellerator linkage used to engage throttle by lever on horn button when starting the car. Having said all that which may not help, if a Chrysler was to convert to RHD, only the starter pedal arrangement would likely remain the same. Most of the accellerator linkage would be different, arguably simpler since it would be on same side as carb, and also for the throttle control from steering box, also then on same side as carb. For your car, I suspect the LHD accellerator setup was unworkable for an RHD conversion and owner jury-rigged a temporary solution. 

 

Note accellerator rod to carb is bolted to top of manifold, you might look for similar connecting point although your carb may be updraft?

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by Gunsmoke
added more detail (see edit history)

[Ozstatman]

1 hour ago, 29StudiePrez said:

Ozstatman,

In an earlier post Touts said the following;

 

"The number that is located on the engine top behind the fan is  FB 10336"

Thanks for that, missed the answer along the way! 

[mike6024]

Pedal arrangement is something. Excuse my ignorance, but what is this horizontal shaft linkage circled red here?

 

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by mike6024 (see edit history)

[Gunsmoke]

Similar to Chrysler, foot activated starter pedal when depressed turns the rod outlined in red, and at other end of that rod is a lever that presses on button on top of starter, something like what is shown here. The silver colored lever and pieces pulls the starter gear out to the flywheel before electrifying the starter (no solenoid). The Chrysler unit also has a reduction gear built in. 

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by Gunsmoke (see edit history)

[edinmass]

On a Pierce Arrow, that linkage, depending on year, can be throttle, but also distributor advance and retard, as well as heat riser in the exhaust manifold. In this case it sure looks like a LHD throttle set up. Since many cars were designed to be built as a LHD or a RHD, one can not make generalizations about cut outs in fire wall and under dash brackets. Since the hand brake is on the right side of the transmission shift lever, I would guess that the original car this transmission was in was LHD.......I’m beginning to think the car/chassis has been mixed and matched at some time in the past........too many strange things going on. It sure looks to be a modified body, and possibly also has chassis and drive line changes.......more photos and more study, we will figure it out. 

[29StudiePrez]

2 hours ago, mike6024 said:

Pedal arrangement is something. Excuse my ignorance, but what is this horizontal shaft linkage circled red here?

 

Frank,

That horizontal shaft linkage is all part of the floor starter button, accelerator to carb and connects the accelerator to the steering wheel controls at the horn button. In the center is the floor starter button which when pushed down pushes down on the starter to the left. The linkage also connects to go to the right to the carburetor. You have this disconnected, normally with this set up the accelerator pedal on a LHD car is to the left of that starter button, when you push down on the accelerator pedal that horizontal shaft would push a rod on the right going to the carburetor. Also the accelerator pedal has linkage connecting the accelerator pedal and the controls coming down from the steering column and all pivot on the end of the housing where your adding oil. 

I went out to my one garage where One of my cars is and video taped this set up on a 1929 Studebaker President FH Convertible Cabriolet. As soon as it finishes uploading to Youtube I'll post the link here. I do have another theory about your car but I was waiting for Dick Quinn to add his comments and thoughts before I threw out another possibility about why you car may be the way it is.

Edited March 23, 2020 by 29StudiePrez (see edit history)

[studeq]

The car is a Studebaker President though it does not have a standard body so I suspect the body was built in Australia. Looking at what is left of the serial plate I am guessing the car was assembled in the Walkerville, Ontario Canada plant and not the main plant in South Bend, Indiana. There was nothing particularly unique about the right hand drive (RHD) as Studebaker assembled them routinely for European, African and Down Under markets. There are no production figures by body style and none for the RHD option. In addition to the non-standard body the headlights and cowl lights are also non-standard. As to whether a 1928 or 1929 very simple to determine by the wheelbase (131" on the '28 FB and 135" on the '29 FH). This can also be determined by the engine number that is STAMPED INTO the block on left front. '28 had a FB prefix, '29 had FH. One last determining feature is the date code on the block. Check the left side and look for a letter followed by two numbers. That will indicate the month and year the block was cast. I am attaching images of both the FB and FH roadsters with standard Studebaker roadster bodies. Have many more plus lots of technical data. 

Edited March 23, 2020 by studeq (see edit history)

[mike6024]

\

Casting date code H - 8 - 15 translates to August 15, 1928.

 

8= August, 15= 15th day, H=1928 according to what I found.

 

 

[Ozstatman]

2 minutes ago, studeq said:

The car is a Studebaker President though it does not have a standard body so I suspect the body was built in Australia.

 

Based on the ID or Engine Number it appears  to be the the same Roadster referred to as selling in the BJ auction.

 

Is it worthwhile chasing down BJ, which may prove difficult in these troubled time,  to obtain whatever info they may have on the history of the car.

 

 

 

 

[29StudiePrez]

Thank you for your review and comments studeq. I'm glad you brought up the Australian body issue. However, you never answwred the question as to did Studebaker offer a Roadster body on the FA chassis? Or just on the FB chassis? And if not, did this go out the window when it came to Australian imports?  The assumption was that because this car may have been the same one sold by BJ at auction in the U.S. in 1997 that it was a U.S. built car. Whether or not is was a RHD car already when it went through that auction in the U.S. Frank may be able to find out by contacting them. If it is the same car and it did have RHD in 1997 then I suppose its entirely possible it ended up in the U.S. at some point and time, was bought at Auction and returned back to Australia where it originated. Which leads me to what I was going say to Frank about the possibility it being an Australian import from the beginning. It is my understanding that due to the high import taxes of cars coming into Australia, back then it was not uncommon in order to avoid import taxes, car manufacturers of the era would send just a car's chassis with front hood and cowl, front and back fenders etc. And the bodies from the dash back would be made by local body builders there in Australia. This would account for why your body is different than others and sitting on the 131" wb chassis, Its is very possible that someone ordred the large 131" FA chassis and then when it got to Australia the new owners decided against whatever body they were going to get that normally sat on the 131 chassis and instead decided they wanted a Roadster body. However all that still doesnt explain why your entire brake/clutch/accelerator set up, as well as the linkage for the steering wheel to the accelerator/and spark advance as well as all the other features are reversed and not ser up correctly.

Below is a link to the youtube video i made so you could see what the setup was for the accelerator linkage.

 

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by 29StudiePrez (see edit history)

[Buffalowed Bill]

I don't know if anyone has previously made the observation that the front fenders seem to be from a 29 FH or later car. If you look at Dick's two photos the difference becomes pretty obvious. 1931 also used the same basic front fenders, but with the eyebrow cropped by about an inch. The alteration isn't easy to pick up, even if the same car has one of each. I know this because that's how my 31 was before we restored it.

[Buffalowed Bill]

Ed,

 

I doubt that Studebaker ever used the Gemmer box, on any early President. It's always been a mystery why the company choose to use the Gemmer on the 1929-30 Pierce. I'm sure it was one of those choices that they later came to regret.

 

Bill

[Touts]

Following on from that excellent YouTube presentation I have taken some additional photos.

 

I note that my Windscreen is different to the YouTube car. 

I believe it to be original even if not from my car. It looks the same as is on the Black Pagoda Roadster.

 

I also note that I don’t have Wind Up Side Windows as on the YouTube car.

 

The Ross Steering Box on the YouTube car appears the same as the my car but RHD. 

To answer my own question, it looks like an original RHD car as I can’t see anything that tells me otherwise. The Pedals are totally wrong which may blow my theory.

 

The noted photographed area above the Side Boards seems to be un-natural, it “Protrudes” and is “Over Curved” in my opinion giving StudiePrez’s’ theory credibility.

This could be the smoking gun if agreed.

 

I decided to dismantle the Rumble Seat and Rear Area in an attempt to investigate what has happened to my Rear End .

 

I am coming to the conclusion that the car was/is a Studebaker that may have been modified to some degree in its life.

 

On close examination of the rear area I can’t seem to establish where my 10” was added.

This is primarily because I don’t know how they built cars in the 1920’s.

 

From my limited knowledge the construction looks sort of original but, rough hand build style. If this car was modified I would say it was a long time ago.

Frank 

 

[edinmass]

I agree with the above....an original RHD car, with a RHD engine, but it appears to have a LHD transmission.......the bell housing is RHD and the pedals look incorrect.............as far as the body...........more photos of the wood construction would help. The "tub" seems to look like typical US Stude/Pierce construction with too many similarities for the entire car to be a one off...........unless the factory shipped the chassis with a bunch of hardware. It sure is an interesting car. Removal of all the paint to bare metal would allow on to figure out how and what has been modified or changed. 

[edinmass]

When you look at the rumble seat floor pan and inner fender wells, it's clearly a factory built pan........the square holes are to hold the rear seat cushion in........typical of Stude and Pierce. What doesn't make sense is the workmanship of the rumble lid and golf bag door......... or the reason the car would have had the lid/door combination from the factory, and how this car was changed. Sounds crazy, but it either was ordered as a chassis and body that was shipped separate(avoids import fees) and then fitted and assembled down under........or there were two Presidents down under that were somehow combined. Interesting car...........

[58L-Y8]

Going out on a limb here with limb saw in hand,  for what its worth,  I suggest you measure the width of the doors.   I think the forward half of the body from the cowl to just behind the rear door edge is from a '28 President FA State Tourer.  The doors look unusually wide for a factory roadster body.  

 

Is the rear section with the rumble seat opening of all-steel construction without wood framing?  It looks to be from the pictures.

[edinmass]

24 minutes ago, 58L-Y8 said:

Going out on a limb here with limb saw in hand,  for what its worth,  I suggest you measure the width of the doors.   I think the forward half of the body from the cowl to just behind the rear door edge is from a '28 President FA State Tourer.  The doors look unusually wide for a factory roadster body.  

 

Is the rear section with the rumble seat opening of all-steel construction without wood framing?  It looks to be from the pictures.

I saw the cut under the doors, but the floor pan in the rear is factory, 100 percent sure of it. Sure looks like someone added in a section behind the doors, but the overall lines look very good.......better than the construction........which is very unusual as modifications usually look bad.....almost 100 percent of the time. Just doesn’t add up the lines look as good as they do, but the “stretch”  has poor attention to detail. I think the story is compounded by the possibility of another car being involved.........also,  I have seen factory cars and coach work reworked to use up an end of year or end of model chassis and coach work. That may partially be the case here. 

[58L-Y8]

36 minutes ago, edinmass said:

I saw the cut under the doors, but the floor pan in the rear is factory, 100 percent sure of it. Sure looks like someone added in a section behind the doors, but the overall lines look very good.......better than the construction........which is very unusual as modifications usually look bad.....almost 100 percent of the time. 

The question for Studebaker men familiar with the '28 FA Tourer, did they have recessed footwells from the factory as did the roadster?

 

The only roadster rear body section I've been able to partially match up for some of the lines are on the '32-'34 Lincoln KA, but not exactly. 

[29StudiePrez]

9 hours ago, Buffalowed Bill said:

I don't know if anyone has previously made the observation that the front fenders seem to be from a 29 FH or later car. If you look at Dick's two photos the difference becomes pretty obvious. 1931 also used the same basic front fenders, but with the eyebrow cropped by about an inch. The alteration isn't easy to pick up, even if the same car has one of each. I know this because that's how my 31 was before we restored it.

 

Bill,

The reason you have this obeservation about the front fenders is because Studebaker never added soundmount fenders as an option to the Roadsters until later into 1929. They were originally always rear mounted spares so the 1928 FB President Roadsters never had sidemounts and since Studebaker never built a Roadster on the 131" FA chassis sidemount fenders wouldnt have come on this car either. However it stands to reason that if someone was going to go to all the effort that they did already, well then why not add sidemount fenders while your at it.