1957 Studebaker Commander & 57 Chevy

[cbasta]

I've pondered this for years:  Why does this look so much like the 57 Chevy?  Who copied who? 

 

[kgreen]

[John_S_in_Penna]

I'm not sure whether anyone knows who copied whom.

 

I see commonality between many cars of those years.

It's seen in perhaps all decades.  Notice how in the 1990's,

most cars began to use the rounded "jellybean" look, for

instance.

 

Some commonalities from 1957 that are visible:

 

---Headlights in rounded tunnels at the upper, outer edge

of the fenders.

---"Hoods," or sheltering projections, over the headlights.

---A wider grille that extends all the way to the body sides.

---A heavier upper grille bar, a finer mesh grille, and a

decoration on the leading horizontal lip of the hood.

 

I think that 1956 Studebaker, other than its gray paint, looks good!

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by John_S_in_Penna (see edit history)

[8E45E]

I always thought how closely both the 1957 Pontiac and Studebaker's taillights were in design as per Post #34 here:  https://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/forum/your-studebaker-forum/general-studebaker-specific-discussion/57204-1957-wagons-gulp-this-explains-a-lot/page3

 

Craig

Edited July 7, 2022 by 8E45E (see edit history)

[Bloo]

The travesty is that the 58 2 door hardtops never got this single-headlight nose.

[TAKerry]

They look like they could share sheet metal from the windshield forward. I have never looked at the 2 compared side to side, def. an interesting perspective.

[Bloo]

I suspect it is the same sheetmetal, and the dual headlight pods are add-ons.

 

 

 

[Jim Skelly]

55 minutes ago, Bloo said:

I suspect it is the same sheetmetal, and the dual headlight pods are add-ons.

 

 

 

 

that's what I've read

[Gunsmoke]

Personally, other than the hooded headlights, (which appeared on virtually every car in the day, Ford, Mercury, Olds, Buick, Dodge...)and general proportions (common to all full sized sedans of the era), I see nothing in common other than America's fascination at the time with chrome googaws! And these are not the worst examples. 

[joe_padavano]

Cars of the same vintage all look similar. Styles come and go. Compare a 1978 Crown Vic with a 1978 Caprice. Or how about the "bustle back" 1981 Seville that was copied by both Lincoln and Chrysler. That one always makes me scratch my head.

 

[rocketraider]

Who copied it from Hooper coachworks in England...

[joe_padavano]

18 minutes ago, rocketraider said:

Who copied it from Hooper coachworks in England...

 

And still not a great look. 😉

[58L-Y8]

3 hours ago, cbasta said:

I've pondered this for years:  Why does this look so much like the 57 Chevy?  Who copied who? 

 

Studebaker had instituted their "European Look" with the Loewy-contract styled 1953 line.   While the low, lithe hardtops and coupes proved highly popular, the tall, dumpy sedans and wagon were summarily rejected by all but loyal Studebaker buyers.  Sedans and wagons were generally the bread and butter of a carmaker, but Studebaker was stuck with marketing the styling for at least through the 1955 models to amortize costs.  

During 1954, the merger with Packard took place and with-it new management lead by Packard president James Nance.  Among the many problems he concerned himself with was their styling.  He recognized that Studebaker, while presenting a unique approach, was regarded as running counter to the prevailing styling trends established by primarily GM and to a degree by Ford, giving potential buyers one more reason to bypass Studebaker as their choice. 

Nance also knew the Loewy design contract, which would end in 1955, was tremendously expensive for Studebaker to carry, over a million dollars annually, particularly with falling sales and profits.  An internal styling department was being developed which could take over the task.   In the short term for 1956, the sedans and wagon would receive a restyling which was mandated to be "more mainstream in the current Detroit idiom".  For the task, freelance designer Vince Gardner was contracted to restyle the front and rear, raising the hood line, squaring up the trunk surfaces and fender lines, color-breaks side trim.   For reference, compare overall body shape and proportions of the 1956 Studebaker sedans to the concurrent Chevrolet and Ford, only the details differ.

While the 1956 sold fair well, overall S-P sales were significantly below 1955 level, the corporation was hemorrhaging money, would have been bankrupt by mid-1956.  Desperate actions by Nance to raise the necessary $50M capital from the insurance companies and banks to fund continuing operations and the all-new 1957 shared body program failed.  That program would have created a common body shell with various frame length platform etc. to be used for Packard, Clipper (now a separate nameplate) and Studebaker, was no longer possible.  
Throughout the Spring of 1956, one avenue after another to save the corporation and automaking was probed but ultimately found closed.   S-P still had significant defense contracts and facilities which induced Curtiss-Wright to sign onto a "Joint Program" agreement for management advice, financing to continue operations.  But the 'pound of flesh' in exchange were the defense contracts and facilities, plus a good deal of "misdirection" as C-W management had no automotive industry experience.   Unspoken was a bit of Eisenhower Administration arm-twisting on C-W to step forward in that election year, fearing the total collapse of two automakers would have on the outcome if such were allowed to occur.  C-W's mandate was to stem the massive losses and salvage some portion of the automaking.  This resulted in the closing down of the Detroit Packard operations completely, consolidating to maintain Studebaker operations on a reduced basis.  No all-new body program was ever going to occur thereafter.

For the 1957 models, the small in-house Studebaker styling team headed by Duncan MacRae imparted a few of the styling details from the now still-born all-new shared body program into the 1957 Studebakers on a restyled Vince Gardner-styled sedan.  Specifically, the dropped section in the front bumper, broad grille and "cocoon" taillights with horizontal lens.  Other than the hood, no major sheet metal changes were affordable.  Even in the face of all the bad news in the general press, sales stabilized somewhat, and the losses were reduced but continued.  At this point, the bright spot were the bare-bones Scotsman sales, taken in conjunction with encouraging Rambler and continuing strong import sales as direction for now S-P president Harold Churchill to initiate the compact car program that would become the Lark.
Basically, this is a synopsis of the events and principals involved in that critical period.  For those who wish to read in depth, I recommend Studebaker: The Postwar Years by Richard Langworth.

Ask a simple question...get a dissertation! 
Steve
 

[Rusty_OToole]

I heard there was another thing that made SP attractive to Curtis Wright. They had large losses on the books that could be applied against income taxes while CW had large profits and needed the tax relief. In other words by buying SP they got back most of what they paid in tax savings meaning they got the company assets dirt cheap.

[8E45E]

7 minutes ago, Rusty_OToole said:

I heard there was another thing that made SP attractive to Curtis Wright. They had large losses on the books that could be applied against income taxes while CW had large profits and needed the tax relief. In other words by buying SP they got back most of what they paid in tax savings meaning they got the company assets dirt cheap.

That was true, but to also show a 'loss' situation made it easier to score further government contracts.   This was one reason the Eisenhower administration supported the deal, as they did want a major corporation going under in an election year.

 

Craig

Edited June 28, 2022 by 8E45E (see edit history)

[Paul Dobbin]

    If Chevrolet was going copy any Studebaker in 1956 or 57, it should have been the Silver Hawk, not that ugly Commander.   I like the 57 Chevy style & still do.   But, I'd rather have the Hawk.

[Bryan G]

I'd also noticed the similarity between the two, and it made me wonder why the Studebaker didn't sell better. But then, do a full walk around of the cars and the Commander doesn't have nearly the style. At least, they were in the ballpark in their designs, and got as close as they could to what the mighty GM was cooking up but on a meager budge.

[Rusty_OToole]

I know this is not a popular opinion but the 57 Chevy was not that hot a design. For one thing it was the 3d year for that body when Ford and Plymouth both had brand new designs. The Ford and Plymouth were longer, lower, and wider and if you put them side by side make the Chev look downright dowdy.

 

Studebaker had a similar problem, face lifting a 5 year old body on a budget and trying to make it look new.

[8E45E]

8 hours ago, Rusty_OToole said:

I know this is not a popular opinion but the 57 Chevy was not that hot a design. For one thing it was the 3d year for that body when Ford and Plymouth both had brand new designs. The Ford and Plymouth were longer, lower, and wider and if you put them side by side make the Chev look downright dowdy.

 

Studebaker had a similar problem, face lifting a 5 year old body on a budget and trying to make it look new.

As I mentioned in another thread, Ford outsold Chevrolet for 1957.  

 

Studebakers were priced too high compared to Chevrolet until the Scotsman came out midway through the 1957 model year.

 

Craig

[58L-Y8]

13 hours ago, Rusty_OToole said:

I heard there was another thing that made SP attractive to Curtis Wright. They had large losses on the books that could be applied against income taxes while CW had large profits and needed the tax relief. In other words by buying SP they got back most of what they paid in tax savings meaning they got the company assets dirt cheap.

Thanks for adding this underlying inducement for C-W to become involved with the S-P situation.  While C-W didn't buy out or merge with S-P, they did get access to the massive losses to use as write-off against their significant profits.  For $35M, they also got useful newer plants and defense contracts set up in the Utica-Bend subsidiary corporation.

  

By the 1957 models, public confidence in S-P as a viable automaker with future stability was badly eroded.  Much more than appealing styling was going to be needed to bolster sales.  With Kaiser-Willys withdrawing from car production, Nash and Hudson staggering to a close and Packard all but gone but for its name on a restyled Studebaker President, purchase of a Studebaker was left to the longtime core loyal buyers.  Others shied away for fear of being stuck with an orphan with the attendant loss of parts and service support and resale value.

[EmTee]

Another reason for 'styling crossover' among car makers is that some of the designer/stylists migrated to different companies.  One example that readily comes to mind is Larry Shinoda.

[8E45E]

2 minutes ago, EmTee said:

Another reason for 'styling crossover' among car makers is that some of the designer/stylists migrated to different companies.  One example that readily comes to mind is Larry Shinoda.

Ellwood Engel was another one who jumped from Ford to Chrysler in the early 1960's.

 

Craig

[joe_padavano]

2 hours ago, EmTee said:

Another reason for 'styling crossover' among car makers is that some of the designer/stylists migrated to different companies.  One example that readily comes to mind is Larry Shinoda.

 

I think the classic example of that is the Bunkie Knudsen "Pontiac Prow" on the 1970 T-bird.

 

[rocketraider]

21 minutes ago, joe_padavano said:

 

I think the classic example of that is the Bunkie Knudsen "Pontiac Prow" on the 1970 T-bird.

 

That translated into exorbitant insurance premiums once the Beaky 'Birds got into a few front end bump-ups...

[Buffalowed Bill]

No independent car manufacturer survived. The Big Three had too much sway in the market. The winnowing out process that began in the late 20's, sped up during Depression, just continued after the pent up post-war demand for cars was met. Being first independent company with an OHV V8, didn't amount to much after the BT came out with their own. Ditto also Studebaker's ground breaking automatic trans.  

 

Styling was another all together different situation. It has become obvious that no matter how admired unique styling was, as in Studebaker's post war offerings, being different does not sell. Studebaker was on life support, caught between a rock and a hard place, with regards to styling. They knew that different did not sell, and going along with the shoe box styling of the time, they could not compete, so they tried to go forward, in an effort to compete with both styles. The result was inevitable! 
 

[joe_padavano]

1 hour ago, Buffalowed Bill said:

being different does not sell.

 

That's not always true. The 1994 Dodge Ram pickup was very different and a huge success for them.

 

[TerryB]

32 minutes ago, joe_padavano said:

 

That's not always true. The 1994 Dodge Ram pickup was very different and a huge success for them.

 

You wonder if the styling was a result of market research or some designer’s “I think this will be a success” pitch.  Whatever, it sure was a home run for Dodge.

[8E45E]

2 hours ago, Buffalowed Bill said:

Styling was another all together different situation. It has become obvious that no matter how admired unique styling was, as in Studebaker's post war offerings, being different does not sell. Studebaker was on life support, caught between a rock and a hard place, with regards to styling. They knew that different did not sell, and going along with the shoe box styling of the time, they could not compete, so they tried to go forward, in an effort to compete with both styles. The result was inevitable! 

Both the 1953 C/K body and Avanti would have sold exceptionally well had they been available on introduction day!

 

The demand was there in both instances with buyers plunking down deposits in advance for the cars, but production problems delayed their availability, and by then, interest waned.

 

Craig

[Rusty_OToole]

3 hours ago, Buffalowed Bill said:

No independent car manufacturer survived. The Big Three had too much sway in the market. The winnowing out process that began in the late 20's, sped up during Depression, just continued after the pent up post-war demand for cars was met. Being first independent company with an OHV V8, didn't amount to much after the BT came out with their own. Ditto also Studebaker's ground breaking automatic trans.  

 

Styling was another all together different situation. It has become obvious that no matter how admired unique styling was, as in Studebaker's post war offerings, being different does not sell. Studebaker was on life support, caught between a rock and a hard place, with regards to styling. They knew that different did not sell, and going along with the shoe box styling of the time, they could not compete, so they tried to go forward, in an effort to compete with both styles. The result was inevitable! 
 

No independent could build a better Ford than Ford or a better Chevrolet than Chevrolet. The only way to compete was to offer the public something different that they could not get from the Big Three.

In Studebaker's case in the forties and fifties this was the latest in styling. First by far with a postwar car, then the radical airplane style 50 and 51, the sleek 53 coupes. Studebaker could make a profit on annual sales of 100,000 or more and they achieved that every year until the early fifties.  The new 1953 models should have put them back on the hit parade but they did not sell as they should have.

One factor seldom mentioned is the ding dong battle between Ford and Chevrolet for top selling car. Ford put on a massive effort starting in 1953 to overtake Chevrolet in sales, forcing cars on their dealers whether they wanted them or not, and whether they could sell them or not. The result was "the system" , first developed by southern Ford dealers, to practically force customers to buy a car using every under handed trick in the book. These high pressure sales tactics were so bad they eventually resulted in changes to consumer protection laws including the Mulroney sticker giving the price of the car and accessories. But in the meantime the independents suffered .

[John_S_in_Penna]

22 hours ago, Bryan G said:

I'd also noticed the similarity between the two, and it made me wonder why the Studebaker didn't sell better. 

I like to do historical research, and I've done articles

on some forgotten aspects of history.

 

One fact seldom mentioned today, but known in the 1950's:

The cars that didn't sell so well tended to be worse than

their competitors.  Not only were they low in the rankings,

they were less reliable and tended to have lower resale values.

 

In 1955-1956, for instance, this was true of Willys, Studebaker,

Packard, Nash, and Hudson.  Is it perhaps any wonder that

their sales continued dropping until they dropped out of the

American car market completely?

[Grimy]

11 minutes ago, John_S_in_Penna said:

I like to do historical research, and I've done articles

on some forgotten aspects of history.

 

One fact seldom mentioned today, but known in the 1950's:

The cars that didn't sell so well tended to be worse than

their competitors.  Not only were they low in the rankings,

they were less reliable and tended to have lower resale values.

 

In 1955-1956, for instance, this was true of Willys, Studebaker,

Packard, Nash, and Hudson.  Is it perhaps any wonder that

their sales continued dropping until they dropped out of the

American car market completely?

That's a sweeping generalization, John_S!  Lower resale can be accounted for by the Big Three's lower end cars dominating the market.  What's the source of your reliability data, and for which years/engines?

 

BTW, I wuz dere in the 50s are a car-infatuated teenager...

[John_S_in_Penna]

3 hours ago, Grimy said:

That's a sweeping generalization, John_S!  Lower resale can be accounted for by the Big Three's lower end cars dominating the market.  What's the source of your reliability data, and for which years/engines?

It is sweeping, and to me it makes sense.  Would buyers flock

to cars that were poor?  No!  Would word percolate through the

market and gradually bring converts to better cars?  Yes!

 

Reliability data were compiled from tens of thousands of customers'

responses in Consumer Reports' annual auto issue, for one.  Cadillac,

then, had the best reliability rating of any car, and very high resale value;

rightfully called the "Standard of the World" if you believe those

1950's reports and the many customers.

 

Just look at later patterns of poor quality and the cars that left

the market: Fiat in the 1970's, Peugeot in the 1980's, Fiat again in

recent years;  Chrysler in recent years is on a downhill slide.

When Oldsmobile soared in the 1970's, and Buick did very well,

their quality was high.  Nissan, Honda, and Toyota excelled when

their quality was tops. 

 

There can be other reasons for poor sales, too:  Poor styling,

or an uncompetitive cost structure in a company that obviates

low pricing.  But I'm holding to my quality hypothesis as a major

contributor.

Edited June 30, 2022 by John_S_in_Penna (see edit history)

[3macboys]

Back to the OP comments about copying - that Studebaker hood ornament sure has the look of a 1951 Mercury's