Good morning! Today’s choices are a bit cosmetically challenged, but I don’t think you’re going to care, because they both just ooze cool. And probably a fluid or two. But that’s fine too.
I knew from the start that yesterday‘s Gazelle kit car was going to go over like a lead balloon. But as I have said before, my choices are cars that are interesting for me to write about, and for you to read about, not necessarily something you’d actually want. So I decided to put the Gazelle up against that taxi, knowing full well it would get slaughtered.
That said, I have to choose the Gazelle. Why? My wife likes it. And honestly, I’d rather work on something that no one cares how much you mess with it. Something like that London taxi, you’re sort of honor-bound to keep it original to some degree. But a Gazelle? Do what you want.
Today’s choices are both from the Pacific Northwest again, and they’re both the sort of thing you still see roaming the streets in that part of the country. Cool old cars, in rough cosmetic condition, are just part of the scenery up there, and no one who owns them has any intention of fixing them up. They just drive them as-is, fixing things as they break, barely aware of the fact that their Saab 96 or Nash Rambler would be considered a collector’s car elsewhere. And that attitude makes them even cooler, in my eyes. And if you have always wanted a scruffy daily-driver classic of your own, we’ve got two here to choose from.
1964 Studebaker Champ 3/4 Ton Pickup – $4,900
Engine/drivetrain: 289 cubic inch overhead valve V8, five-speed manual, RWD
Location: Bellingham, WA
Odometer reading: 67,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well, but just taken out of storage
When you think of American pickups of the ’60s, you think Ford, Chevy, and Dodge, and maybe if you’re really cool, International. But perpetually beleaguered Studebaker also made pickups, though not in any great quantity: this 1964 Champ is one of only 203 three-quarter-ton trucks to come out of South Bend, Indiana that year, and one of even fewer with Studebaker’s 289 cubic inch engine and a five-speed overdrive transmission. A five-speed with overdrive was pretty advanced for 1964, but it wasn’t quite the same as what we think of now. Check out this crazy shift pattern:
Good thing that little placard is there, because there’s no way in hell you’re figuring that one out on your own. This truck also has 4.10:1 rear end gears instead of 4.56, for a little more relaxed highway cruising, and a limited-slip diff. It’s a good spec for an old truck; you can actually use it as intended.
This truck has been parked indoors for the past ten years, according to the seller. They just recently pulled it out and revived it. It runs great and is drivable, but it will need new tires before you go too far. On the plus side, the coolant and fuel lines look new, so obviously someone knew what they were doing when they woke this truck up. And the engine was rebuilt shortly before it was put into storage, so it should be good to go.
The seller says it “needs” restoration, but I’m not sure I agree. I kinda like it the way it is. It’s not rusty, or abused; it’s just faded. I personally would just finish the mechanical reconditioning, make sure everything oily is in tip-top shape, and just enjoy it. Not every old car needs to be taken down to the frame and painstakingly restored.
1966 Volvo 122S Wagon – $2,200
Engine/drivetrain: 1.8-liter overhead valve inline 4, four-speed manual, RWD
Location: Orcas Island, WA
Odometer reading: Reads 05833, actual mileage unknown
Operational status: Runs and drives great, driven daily
Old Volvo wagons and the Pacific Northwest go together like hipsters and shitty beer. They’re still the old battered ride of choice for plenty of car-savvy bartenders and baristas in both Seattle and Portland. Mostly you see 240s, but the 740/940 are well-represented, as are the newer 850/V70. But what you don’t see very often at all is an Amazon wagon like this – maybe because it takes a special breed of gearhead to balance a pair of SU carbs.
This old wagon apparently runs and drives well enough to still be in daily use, a testament not only to the 122’s quality and reliability but also to the owner’s commitment to keeping it on the road. Under the hood, it looks the way you want an old car to look: tidy, intact, with a smattering of new parts, but not so pristine that you’re afraid to get it dirty.
The rest of it is less nice, though I’ve seen 122s in way worse shape. The seat upholstery has some cracks and tears, and the driver’s door card is MIA, but I only see one or two cracks in the dashboard, and the headliner is in nice shape. Hey, I have to give it points where I can. I really like the character of the interiors in these old Volvos, with a wide rectangular speedometer, a long gearshift lever that comes from way forward on the tunnel, and that two-spoke steering wheel with a horn ring. It was anachronistic when it was new, but now it’s just really charming.
On the outside, it’s – colorful. And yes, one of those colors is rust. But it’s also only $2,200, for a car that will turn heads even in this condition and isn’t likely to leave you stranded.
It’s no secret that I prefer older cars to newer ones. But honestly, pristine show cars bore me most of the time. I prefer the survivors, especially the ones that have been kept in (or returned to) good working order. These are both inexpensive enough to use without fear, and rare and interesting enough to start conversations at the gas station, and that makes them cool. Which one would you rather be seen in?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
What a great combination. Right there in the Studebaker ad it says “…that will allow it to tow a vintage car on a trailer down the freeway nicely. ” Challenge accepted. Buy the truck, buy some tires, rent a U-Haul trailer, go pick up the Volvo and head back home.
Volvo: wagon, manual; plus a trip to Orcas Island, which I’ve visited before and has a place in my heart. Dunno if I’d trust it to make it all they way home to California. Probably best to bring a trailer.
Studebaker all the way on this one.
The transmission is a New Process NP542 Overdrive. 1st is a granny low that you’ll maybe use twice during your ownership and 5th is .85:1. It’s an overspec’d medium truck tranny.
No wonder Studebaker couldn’t make a profit.
I don’t think you can go wrong with any of these. I already own a truck and I’m cheap so I’d go Amazon and use the remaining cash to get it re-sprayed and re-upholstered.
I grew up just outside of, and now once again live just outside of South Bend. As a car nut from around there, the Studebaker is obligatory. I used to see a number of these still on the road locally in the 70s and 80s. Somehow they’d escaped the curse of road salt.
If the Volvo were somewhere between Sacramento and Livermore, it would be home by now.
Volvo. Manual. Wagon.
Is there really a better choice?
Thanks Mark, good job.
Studebaker all the way. With the overdrive, it shouldn’t be bad to daily even today. And frankly, I have a special place in my heart for scruffy old trucks.
This is an easy choice for me.
The tough choice would come down to a vanity plate: “Undisputed” or “Peen.”
First-world problems.
I’ll take both please.
Of course I chose the pickup.
I had a 64 Champ many years ago. It was an automatic, but the shift pattern was odd to me. If I recall correctly, it went PND21R. I bought it sight unseen for a couple hundred bucks, so Initially I assumed Reverse was out. Imagine my surprise when I shifted down to where 1 was, and backwards I went.
[RoadtoElDoradoBoth.gif]
It was a close call but I went for the Volvo even though I’m quite intrigued by that 5 speed the Studebaker has.
My first thought was to automatically pick the Volvo wagon just because its a Volvo wagon. But after looking at the Stude, I want it. Unfortunately I’m on the other coast, and don’t have space at the moment. Someone is getting a very cool truck. I wouldn’t restore it either. Update the mechanicals, fix the interior and drive it.
I love Studebaker anything, but that Volvo is so damned good looking and I have a 2.8L Cologne V6 and a 4spd in my shed that would fit so nicely in there that I have to go with it.
I’ll take the Amazon because I love them, but this is definitely a win-win day. My grandfather was a Studebaker man, then an Imperial man, and finally a Chrysler man. He loved cars with unique styling and if he owned a truck, that Studebaker would have been it.
The Volvo is almost worth picking for the steering wheel alone. Going with the truck, though. I’d polish it up a bit – new paint, fix the seats up, get the tailgate taken care of – just enough to look snazzy, but no major resto. Make sure all the mechanicals are good and then just drive it.
The Stude is no doubt the correct choice, but a Volvo Amazon in WAGON FORM? I can fix her.
This is definitely a “porque no los dos?” day. Both are cool and awesome, and only my irrational love for Studebakers overrode the price difference. And a 3/4 ton Studebaker truck? Didn’t even know they existed and the lines on this one look great, somehow sturdier and beefier without wrecking the pretty Studebaker lines.
Provided the belly and limbs are clean and sound, I would go with the Volvo. I don’t think I would bother with the paint. I would put the money into deep cleaning and sprucing up the interior, since that’s what I’d be seeing most of the time anyway.
This is a tough one, but my preexisting soft soft for Studebakers wins out. It’s rare to see trucks like that in such good, unrestored condition.
The Volvo is in daily use and thus it’s the winner for me. First order of business is a cheap paintjob.
Sadly, the paint job would only be the start. As neat as those twin SUs are, hey will require a bit of work. The throttle shafts will undoubtedly need re-bushing to eliminate the air leaks. You can sync them at idle, you can sync them at 2500 rpm, but not both at the same time.
The suspension will likely require new bushings to eliminate the clunks, rattles and sloppy steering (the Stude will like need those things too). I think I’d gone/ the 122 estate for its tidy dimensions and cool, but useful vibe.
I waited too long to edit the above, but: (…those twin SUs are, they will require bushing the shafts. (Had a B16B PV444)
But I do think I’d go for the Amazon
Fozzy Bear once said that a bear’s natural habitat is a Studebaker. Since I’m afraid of bears, especially in confined spaces, I went with the Volvo.
“…barely aware of the fact that their Saab 96… would be considered a collector’s car elsewhere.”
Why didn’t you tell me this before I got rid of two of them for free?
https://live.staticflickr.com/2828/9936422986_08df147532_c.jpg
I am now prepared to entertain foolishly high offers on the remaining apparently collectible example, which is the one with the roof rack. No, the other one with the roof rack. No, the other, other one with the roof rack. If it does sell I’ll have to figure out another way of getting home from work today, though.
You did that, just one state away from Gary Small SAAB!
I did, but I admit I kept the roof racks.
That SAAB freewheel made towing easier on #47, eh?
Huh. It didn’t occur to me that I could have put it in a forward gear with the freewheel engaged and thereby relied upon it as a makeshift (so to speak) preventive measure against rolling backwards. As it was I just put it in neutral. I’ll have to keep that in mind for next time.
Glad to help. But I’m guessing that the low compression/2 stroke nature of the engine would require 2nd gear to do much holding. My F.I.L. had a 93 (yellow) that he drove a lot. That’s where I learned about the freewheeling. I’d had 2 stroke motorcycles, but they all had oil injection systems that kept feeding oil to the cylinder/crankcase even w/ a closed throttle. The SAAB was totally reliant on the oil in the fuel. High rev overrun would seize the engine.
For the later years of the two-stroke 96 an oil injection system was optional but it was neither reliable nor popular. Quite a few owners removed it and relied on mixing instead. Mine started out as an injector car but the system was long gone by the time I got it.
I had heard about the injection cars, but I figured that emissions did the 2 stroke in like happened to the 2 stroke motorcycles. The later years of that body style saw Ford Taunus V-4 bolted up to the existing transmission, retaining the freewheeling for a time. Wikipedia claim that Ford used SAAB 93s as a test mule for the prototype Taunus engine, selling the cars back to SAAB complete w/ V4s. SAAB apparently decided it was a good idea and made them production. An outboard engine mechanic I worked near a lifetime ago had a V4 SAAB wagon (estate).
My former tow car had the V4:
https://live.staticflickr.com/2861/13450695943_3ccef07c0d_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/1692/24104006120_e356d170f5_c.jpg
SAAB kept the freewheeling transmission all the way through the end of production of the 95 (wagon), 96 (sedan), and 97 (Sonett). My understanding is that freewheeling also was incorporated into the completely different transmission of the very early 99 but I’ve never seen one with it.