Tag Archives: station wagon

Studebaker Wagonaire

Leave a reply

studewagonaire63

This almost-a-convertible-not-quite-an-El-Camino wagon was created by Studebaker on the Lark station wagon body. The retractable roof was built into the rear to allow tall cargo to be transported upright. From the ad above, I assume this meant your fishing poles, or your daughter, but I’m sure there were other ways to get them into a converntional wagon.

Any owner of a 240 with a sunroof can guess what problems arose from the Wagonaire’s retractable roof; it leaked like a sieve. Although Studebaker fixed this problem in later years, the model was doomed to a production run of 3 years and open air rear styling for wagons never caught on.

Studebaker Scotsman

Leave a reply

1958-studebaker-scotsman-wagon

I had never heard of the stereotype of Scotsmen being frugal and cheap until I saw this post on Sociological Images. It was well known enough in the 1950s, however, that Studebaker made a line of vehicles under the “Scotsman” name. This included the station wagon pictured above.

According to info on Wikipedia, the Scotsman was Studebaker’s attempt to position itself as the maker of inexpensive, bare-bones cars, in contrast to the Big Three automakers miles of chrome, fins and gimmicks. Base price for a 2 door was the patriotic $1776, but it could be had for less than that if the buyer opted for painted bumpers and wheels instead of chrome.

The interior had no carpeting, just rubber mats on top of steel. Gray vinyl seats and painted cardboard trim (!) were the only interior options and rear passengers were unable to open their windows. Accessories were limited, and dealers were instructed to steer buyers looking for frills to upgrade to the Champion line.

Studebaker managed to deliver a reported 30 MPG from the inline six, making it one of the most economical cars of its size. With 0-60 times of around 20 seconds, it was also one of the slowest.

The Meaning of the Family Truckster

Leave a reply

Car Lust does a great analysis of the failures of the US auto industry by spotlighting the Family Truckster, the monster wagon driven by Chevy Chase in 1983’s National Lampoon’s Vacation. The author deconstructs the satire in 3 simple points:

  • American cars of the era were badly overstyled
  • American cars of the era were poorly engineered and put-together
  • American cars of the era were inferior to their simpler predecessors

He contends that the demise of Clark Griswold is directly related to the purchase of the Truckster. The car is intrinsically evil and he goes so far as to compare it to the precious ring from Lord of the Rings:

Griswold is almost unrecognizable from his pre-movie state–he had descended into a plane of irrationality, immorality, and rationalizing reminiscent of, say, a serious drug user. Again, the One Ring’s slow, deleterious effects on its bearers can serve as an example. While the Truckster’s effects appear to be similar to the Ring’s, the Truckster actually appears to be much more powerful. The Ring took years to twist its bearers, but the Truckster ruined Griswold’s life within a week and left an elderly woman and a dog dead in its wake.

Rather than dropping the wagon into Mt. Doom, however, we now have a loving reproduction that pulls 14.9 second quarter mile times.

What’s wrong with Wagons?

Leave a reply

A couple of weeks ago the NY Times had an article titled “A Market Segment That Dare Not Speak Its Name.” And what segment would that be? The station wagon.

Ezra Dyer outlines three non-wagons that seem to defy categorization. The Ford Flex, BMX X6, and the Infinity EX35, seen below.

pic_infinity_trunk

Auto manufacturers have obviously seen that the market for full-size SUVs is dwindling, but they know that Americans still need lots of trunk space to carry all their stuff. The Infinity and BMW are interesting crossovers in that they are large hatchbacks with a high stance, allowing drivers a more upright seating position, similar to an SUV, but with much more cargo room than a compact hatchback, like the Mazda 3. But why would you want to sacrifice the handling characteristics of a lower center-of-gravity conventional wagon when you know you’re not going off-road?

The Flex is a station wagon that won’t admit it. From the Times article:

The Flex’s mandate is to fulfill the mission of a minivan or large S.U.V. (it seats seven) while looking nothing like either one. The Flex makes no pretense of off-road ability, but it will tow 4,500 pounds — a fair amount more than most cars. So what is it?

It’s a hefty wagon, a Country Squire for the hip-hop age. Why it’s marketed as a crossover, along with the Taurus X and the Fusion, I do not know. Is the word “stationwagon” as unfashionable as the term “minivan”?