The Gran Turismo Hawk (or GT Hawk) was the final evolution of the Hawk series that began in 1956. The GT Hawk, which would run for three years (1962-64) had styling that was inspired by European cars of the day – like the Mercedes-Benz – as well as American personal luxury automobiles, like the Ford Thunderbird. This ’62 edition looks to have been languishing in a field for quite some time and doesn’t run, but the price might be right at $1,400. It’s located in Santa Clarita, California and is available here on craigslist.
Because of Studebaker’s limited resources in the 1960s, the Gran Turismo Hawks were created by taking the existing Hawk platform and body and ridding the car of its 1950s-style tailfins and bodyside trim of previous models. The rear window was formal, nearly flat and recessed, reducing the cost of an ordinarily expensive piece of glass. Yet exterior kept the smooth, aerodynamic style the Hawks had become known for. They were some of the best-looking cars that Studebaker ever built.
In spite of all this, the GT Hawks didn’t break any records at the box office. In 1962, Studebaker built 9,335 of the cars vs. the 78,011 T-Birds that Ford ran down the assembly line. The seller doesn’t provide much in the way of details about this car, but the body does look pretty straight from what we can see (only two photos). We assume there’s a 289 cubic inch V8 under the hood and we’re told its paired with an automatic transmission. 110,000 miles are said to be on the odometer. As a point of reference, here’s a shot of the interior of a similar GT Hawk we covered here recently on Barn Finds. Is the price right on this car?
Trunk is partly open and full of leaves and debris. Secondly I think that’s a stick.
I agree, can’t see a third pedal in the dark picture but sure does look like a stick shift………
If you zoom in to the max, you’ll see a shift pattern printed on the shift knob. This is definitely a stick shift. I agree – this is one of Studebaker’s prettiest cars – and for Studebaker, that’s saying a lot!
That photo of the interior is from another car, not the one for sale. That photo does not appear in the seller’s ad. If the interior of the car for sale was that nice, I’d buy the car this minute!
From the article: “As a point of reference, here’s a shot of the interior of a similar GT Hawk we covered here recently on Barn Finds”
Grandpa: One thing about living in Santa Carla I never could stomach,all the damn vampires. Grandpa: 😉 lost Boys
Lets hope this car is no longer lost and restored soon..
Wow, the interior is much nicer than expected (based on the outside) and possible original. Before it got to the field, someone pampered that car for a long time. Price is right.
The interior picture is from a previous GT Hawk featured on the site.
Steve R
It did look a bit too clean! Thank you Steve R.
An obvious reason not to trust the seller.
‘As a point of reference, here’s a shot of the interior of a similar GT Hawk we covered here recently on Barn Finds. Is the price right on this car?’
Well, that explains it, but why?
I don’t think people are reading the description.
Cali car so I’m sure rust has not eaten the car back to earth. Surprise still for sale at that price. Too bad its on the wrong coast!
from the picture this one is a stick but they say interior is one from a similar car and not this one – would like more accurate pictures and some of engine etc – maybe they could also clean out the trunk from leaves and debris to show the condition how the metal in trunk is .
Pictures are not good but look close at all the rust. Parts car unless it is a lot better in person
I’ve owned one for over 40 years, they are easy to work on and fun to drive but are not worth enough to justify a proper restoration
The notion that a restoration needs to result in a profit is repugnant to me. Car collecting should be a matter of the heart, not the head.
Jeesum crow! If I was working I’d be on this like a duck on a june bug! Love these!
Thank you Jay Flynn. Too bad more folks on this site aren’t of the same opinion. Count me as being on your side.
Kenn – I’m with you and Jay. Strange: people buy new cars all the time – cars that lose half their value in one year and somehow, we’re led to believe that’s perfectly OK. But restored cars lose value too. You pay your money, enjoy the product of your efforts, and sell it for what the market will bring. The difference is the cost of that enjoyment. You don’t make a profit on movie tickets either. Sometimes a particular car with low collector value will catch on and values will soar while one just happens to be in your possession. Dumb luck and maybe you make a “profit”. Some of us speculate on the collector car market and search for cars like this.
If you need to make a profit, in my humble opinion, you are home right here. A $1400 Studebaker Hawk, given a $30-40,000 restoration might suddenly be worth $60,000 in another year or two. It’s a unique and notoriously handsome American design – sold in limited number. Who’s to say when the market for these catches fire. If I were in this for a profit, this is exactly the kind of car on which I’d gamble.
But in the meantime, I do as much of the restoration work as possible myself, on my own time and at my own pace – because I love it – AND – because it amortizes my costs. It’s cheap entertainment. Who cares what the finished car will be worth? I’ve already had my fun.
My older brother had a ‘63 Hawk 289 auto, white, He told us that it was a stoplight to stoplight terror, must have been geared low. A funny story he used to tell was the Hawk needed a new battery, and he couldn’t afford one. Wherever he would go, he would park nose to nose with another car. If the Hawk wouldn’t start, he’d pop the other hood and jump his car.
around here that would getya shot…
There are good and badsides to guns ! And sadly this comment is on the badside !
That interior picture… Don’t blame the seller. That picture does not appear in the seller’s CL add. If you read the text, BF does clarify that this picture is from another car. In retrospect, they could have made that point a bit more obviously. ‘ Can’t believe that ad is still up.
Its really no surprise why these didn’t sell better than the Tbird , Not only was Ford a more popular brand , The reports of Studebakers problems likely kept potential buyers away , and in an era when car styles were changing every year for many models , buying a car that looked dated (and it was ) would be a major turn off for customers.
Bone – my first reaction to your post was “How could you say that about such a fresh bold design?” As a matter of fact, this 1962 design was so fresh, so bold, so ground-breaking that they had to bring it out in 1953!
In fact, they did produce a “new” design circa 1960 – the Lark. But the lark wasn’t really new, it was just the 1953 design with a shortened stubby front clip and a shortened rear end – such that this ultra sleek low-slung design now appeared high and boxy. The Lark was the one Studebaker design I didn’t like. That is, until they revamped it in the Cruiser, circa 1964.
But back to this ’62 model – on further thought, Bone, I have to agree with you. Bearing allegiance to my earlier remarks, I still have to say this is one VERY attractive automobile and had they brought that design out fresh for 1962 I think everybody would have sighed: “WOW!!!!” But as it was, folks could see that nothing was going on at Studebaker. Same old beautiful design… Another crappy year in Paradise. The death knell was peeling, Studebaker was barely trying to keep its nostrils above water and everybody knew it. Thunderbirds, by 1962 had already become stale, fat, and ugly. No more than a “personal car”. At least meagre economics precluded Studebaker from making the Hawk bigger every year. What’s more, word on the street back then was that the Hawk was much more of a driver’s car – a bit sporting even, if you will.
If I were in a position to buy it, it would be long gone by now. C’mon now folks: ’62 Hawk?; ’62 T-bird? Which would you rather have in your “collection”? Which would draw your interest more in a museum? To me, that’s a no-brainer.