Advertising Last completed movie pages
1965 Studebaker Commander 
Class: Cars, Sedan — Model origin: 
— Built in: 
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
Background vehicle
Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2012-07-05 12:47
|
Cruiser or Lark Cruiser? Depends on the year. |
|
◊ 2012-07-05 13:56
|
Could this be one of the last model years of Studebaker?  |
|
◊ 2012-07-05 14:49
|
1964 Cruisers had large block STUDEBAKER lettering across the upper edge of the trunk lid over a bright inlay. The '64 Daytona had the large letters but they were just over the painted surface. The '64 Commanders and Challengers had small nameplates on the right edge of the trunk lid. In 1965, all models had small nameplates on the panel below the trunk lid with no bright overlay on any model. In '66, a bright metal overlay was used low down on the rear panel on both Cruisers and Daytonas and the nameplates were smaller with one being on each side of the rear. This is a '66 Commander. Note the small, low mounted nameplate on the right side of the rear panel only, no bright overlay and the upper section of the taillamp panel converted over to air vents, a '66-only feature. Low mounted side trim also denotes this as a '66. First 1966 Studebaker on the site. Nice catch! -- Last edit: 2012-07-05 15:12:44 |
|
◊ 2012-07-05 16:15
|
So, this is the final Canadian assembled for this specimen .gif ":)") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker#Exit_from_auto_business |
|
◊ 2012-07-05 17:47
|
Yes. |
|
◊ 2012-07-05 21:37
|
I guess this car should actually be noted as built in Canada? Is the model origin US or Canada? For these last two years were any parts supplied from the US or was it all made in Canada. I know the engines were Hamilton V8s, the same as Pontiac and Chev used. |
|
◊ 2012-07-05 23:09
|
The car was entirely built in Canada by the Studebaker Corporation but was regarded as a domestic make, I guess because Studebaker still had a presence in South Bend. |
|
◊ 2012-07-06 01:57
|
I think it's rather a 1965, possibly a Cruiser. In 1966 the lower half of the taillight assembly should be red, but these look like the red over white of 1964-1965. Also, shouldn't there be standalone reverse lights just above the bumper, like so: http://www.studebaker-info.org/Archive/Cars/1966/66COMMDR/DSCN4401.JPG ? Or were those optional, because they're not on the brochure picture: Link to "www.oldcarbrochures.com" ? -- Last edit: 2012-07-06 01:58:43 |
|
◊ 2012-07-06 02:26
|
I think you got me, Tim! I focused on what I thought was low-mounted side trim which now appears upon closer inspection to be a reflection. I thought the rear lamp issue was the lighting but I believe you are right, it shows red over white. This is indeed a '65. (Thus we are still waiting for our first '66! Maybe Aunt Bee's car, some day.) However, as between Commander and Cruiser (there were no '65 Daytona 4-door sedans) I would stick with Commander. The Cruisers had heavier side trim and had nameplates on both sides of the rear. Commanders only had right sided nameplates as appears on the subject car. |
|
◊ 2012-07-07 02:17
|
I wanted it to be a '66 too. Some day. |
Add a comment
