I think this is what they were trying to achieve

anyone else remember whacky races




QUOTE=Ibuildmyown;17301425]


More wasted effort.[/QUOTE]

 

With headlights I hope!

 

You know, if they pulled all the tacked on crap off of the shark car (as well as the dumb shark nose...), and finished it properly, it could be a pretty cool looking 60's style custom... kind of like something Ed Roth would have made.

 

The crazy thing is most of these vehicles do look weird. But the one thing most of them have is talent. Talent to build something. Maybe if they all got together they could build an awesome ride??

 

I wish I had access to some of the stuff that was used to build them..

 

I have one that is ugly right from the factory....'61 Studebaker. No wonder they went bankrupt!

 

There's an article in the last issue of Vintage Truck about a Studebaker truck of a similar year. It is all fixed up an shiny but the writer did comment on how the bed did not fit in with the cab very well. The front of it is wider than the back of the cab as you can see.

 

Here is one in Hemmings:
https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hm...p/3747141.html

 

Yup, the article calls it a parts bin potpourri. It says the bed came from Dodge.

 

Studebaker drivers love the truck. There were two beds available the wider one was an option. Studebaker’s 289 ci engine produces more horses than the Ford 289. They also had a ton of speed records and design trophies. The purchase of Packard and mismanagement is what drove them to bankruptcy.
But I may be a bit prejudiced! But I’m not sure why????

 

I always thought the late-model Stude trucks looked very clean, no gimmicky styling.

 

I like the looks of the mid to late 50's studebaker trucks. Nice rounded curves.

 

 

Looks like a big frog

 

1963 Fords were comparable to Studes when it came to mismatched boxes.