The Studebaker Commander was one of the last remaining models that the company sold when it decided to fold up shop in 1966. U.S.-based production had ceased two years earlier and was focused on Canada and using powerplants provided by General Motors. This 1965 Commander 2-door sedan has been a member of the seller’s family for 20 years, and he/she has an emotional attachment to it. But things change (like a lack of a garage), so it’s time for the classic to find a new home. Located in Seattle, Washington, this documented survivor is available here on craigslist for $15,000. Kudos to “Curvette” for this super tip.
There were three evolutions of the Commander in the Studebaker lineup. From 1927 to 1942, it was a mid-size automobile that survived the Great Depression and pre-war conditions. After WW2, the car received all-new styling cooked up by the famous Raymond Loewy and continued from 1947 to 1958 (after the merger with Packard went nowhere). Come 1964-66, the Commander was a reworked Lark compact that was produced solely in Hamilton, Ontario after Christmas 1963.
We’re told this Studebaker has been in the same family for two decades, and it has only collected 53,500 miles. The turquoise paint and black interior appear to be awesome, and the care given to the car is obvious. The lengthy description of the vehicle provided by the seller reads like a love letter; you can see that he/she really does not want to see the car go (so lowball offers shouldn’t be attempted). The seller seems confused by the engine: we’re told it’s a Chevy 194 cubic inch inline-6, but it sure does look like a V8 to me (283 CI perhaps?).
This car has spent most of the past 20 years in dry storage and may need nothing. More than $900 was spent recently on new parts, including a new battery, some brake work, a flushing of the fuel system, and more. It runs great, and the seller prefers that only buyers with a garage home for the car look into applying for it. This may be the nicest ’65 Studebaker Commander left.
Wiiiiilbur, and I Aunt Bee, I know getting old, but Studebaker didn’t have a lot of those accolades. However Studebaker did have some big name owners, DxxxVanDxxx, Conway Twitty, Judy Garland, Old Blue Eyes, Harpo Marx, Alice Cooper, Johnny Carson, Michael Landon, and Rod Sterling, most with Avantis. Author nailed it, it IS a 283, 1st year, I would have guessed the 289. They look very similar, especially with those valve covers. Again, $15 grand, jeez, I just don’t know. I doubt Wilbur ( Alan Post) era folks paid that. This car was about $2400 new, certainly nice enough, AUTOMATIC( YAY!), and for someone to buy and drive right now, I suppose makes it worth it. Wonderful find.
The X’s are pretty funny and sad at the same time. Careful or no post. Or worse?
Wrong again Howard baby…..that’s a STUDEBAKER V/8 sitting in that engine bay…..see the two valve cover nuts like a Y-block Ford ? See the way that intake goes down just touching the Stude V/8 valley pan – like a Y-block Ford ? Not sure why the seller said a six in his looooong post but it ain’t no McKinnon or Chevy V/8 – 1965 that was built in Canada. Funny the seller is coy about showing the data plate but that’s okay. This car has been re-painted in a color I’m pretty dang sure wasn’t late Stude color. I see the dash ” Stude of Canada” but my 1964 Daytona has that as well. Good luck to the new owner if they jump at it.
The first thing I thought was does the seller not know the differance between a 6 and V-8? He does know, he loves this car and would too, if I could afford it! I don’t think it is overpriced, I just would need to sell some things to make it happen. I am sure it will be gone by then.
The seller’s prose sounds feminine to me. Perhaps only knows what she was told about the car. The original engine would not have been a Studebaker V8. Assuming it did come with a straight 6, then someone put a later Studebaker V8 in it. A nice upgrade in my opinion. Absence of the “8” fender badges further supports a inline 6 as original equipment. Not sure about Canadian production, but 6-cyl US cars also tended to have Dana 27 rear ends versus the heavier Dana 44 used behind the V-8.
I don’t know, I really have to wonder about the story if the seller doesn’t even know the difference between an inline six and a V8 under the hood.
Also it appears that engine has the twin oil filler caps on the valve covers that were used on Studebaker V8s. (You can just about see the red driver side oil filler cap behind the air cleaner snout.) Here’s a picture of a Stude V8 in a 1963 Champ that shows it more clearly:
https://studebakergarage.com/images/1963%20Champ%20259%20V8.jpg
This is what the GM engine for 1965-1966 Studebakers looked like:
https://studebakergarage.com/images/1965-66%20Thunderbolt%20283%20V8%20sm.JPG
Maybe it’s actually a 1964 model? (I believe they looked the same.) Or, it’s a ’65 model and a Studebaker engine was installed at some point?
The car has the GM sourced V8 – not Studebaker V8. I have owned and collected Studebakers. This one was assembled in the Canadian plant. Yes the engine is effectively a Chevy V8.
What size 8 did they have?
What Chevy 283 had 2 bolt valve covers? Thats a Studebaker engine in the picture.
I believe egads is correct; that sure looks like a Studebaker 289…perhaps the very last one on the shelf before they went to the Chevrolet engine.
I agree. That engine is no small block Chevy. The valve covers are wrong as is the intake manifold. And the fuel line is coming from the wrong side. ( take it from someone who had to fight the fuel pump push rod issue replacing a fuel pump (before I learned the trick!) I know it’s supposed to be a Chevy engine. BUT IT AIN’T! Probably was changed by the previous owner. I still like the car regardless of what engine is in engine bay. (A lot can happen from 1965 and 2006. Ooo Ooo, maybe, it was a proto type, a one of one, maybe it’s worth $500,000 dollars!!??? NOT! (LOL)
My thought too, egads. Studey v8s have a wide look to them as well, as this one does.
It sure is a Studebaker engine not the 283 used in 65. It appears to be a disc brake car. I am not so sure this is not a 64. No Vin or body tag.
Egads, you are right! Those yellow valve covers are Studebaker, Not Chevrolet McKinnon 283 valve covers.
It’s definitely a Studebaker V8, which means that this car has been mis-titled. This car is a 1964, not a ’65. There were enough Stude engines available to complete 1964 model year production run in Hamilton. The change to the Chevy/McKinnon sixes and 283 V8 was made for 1965.
John,,That is a Studebaker V8 !!
Yes, and the Chevy engines had the engine oil filler in the front of the block with a breather cap on top. This looks like a Studebaker V8 motor
Judy, Judy, Judy had a Studebaker! Being a Canadian citizen I like the origin of this rig but I would rather have a Fargo pickup.
That IS a Studebaker engine, not a Chevy. 1965 should have the Chevy V8. What I suspect is that this is a leftover ’64 sold in 1965, and the DMV titled it as 1965, as many state DMVs often did.
Something fishy is going on here. That is a Studebaker 259 or 289 V-8 in this car, not a Chevrolet 283. So this is either a 1964 model car, or it has had an engine transplant if the car is a 1965 or ’66
Thats a Stude engine with the bolts and color,,probably a 259 but could be a 289.
Why does the seller’s write-up mention how many 6 cylinder with auto transmission were produced when this vehicle has a V8?
Because the seller only knows what he/she was told about the car or what the documentation for the car says. It’s obviously had an engine transplant in the past. Possibly before the seller was born.
Why does the seller’s write-up mention how many 6 cylinder with auto transmission were produced when this vehicle has a V8?
I have to agree the shape of the valve covers and the intake manifold just don’t look like a small block Chevy. I’d have to go with the Studebaker V-8
Stude engine in this one!! Nice car too!!
Obviously it’s not a Chevy 6. That is the Studebaker V8 that’s pictured. 259 or 289.
This car has a Studebaker V-8! Either 259 or 289. 283 Chevy’s had the thermostat housing on the intake manifold with the oil filler in front. This engine has an air gap under the manifold with a valley pan and oil filler ( can almost make out STP) on the valve cover. Makes the car WAY more desirable to me anyway! Question is, is this car actually a ’64, or did someone perform a transplant?
This is a Studebaker engine.
Youse guys…..here’s a picture of my 1964 Canadian built sold in Illinois with the little Stude V/8. The Stde valve covers were yellow the last years and the McKinnon/Chevies were black….an easy change – BUT that intake is unmistakeable…..the oil filler cap on the sellers engine even has the STP sticker around it. Forgive the sad shape – just getting mine out of the baen after sitting about a decade…..fired right up with a little fresh gas…..gotta get that girl painted….oh…..and mine’s a factory 4 speed with posi….
Very nice! Please keep us updated!
NICE,,I am looking for one like that, but have a few projects befor that one
Very nice looking car, but that isn’t a GM engine. That’s probably a 259, slim chance it was ordered with 289. Well optioned tho.
Very nice! Please keep us updated!
Okay, okay, it’s a Studebaker V8,,,jeez, I like how erroneous information sure gets folks a talkin’,,, :)
Sorry Howard………….when they go after the orphans – it gets messy….
Here’s the McKinnon/Chevy in a 1965/64…..and the one seller under hood picture does have the body tag/production # there are the left on the right side of the firewall….it’s kinda small strip of metal…..the serial # is on the lower left door frame like most old cars….it’s not shown…..
didnt the p/u (? Champ ?) have
the same frnt end & motor?
I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s been lost: many states titled a car by the year it was purchased instead of the model year. That may be the case here. If we knew the serial number ( this is before VINs) we would know what it is rather than having all of this guessing.
I got the serial number, it’s C110145. That’s a Canadian built car. But I’m not well versed in the Canadian serial numbers, so y’all dig in. What I know is that it appears to be a 64, titled as a 65, which was based on the year sold
Price has been increased to 20K, for some reason.
Guess the seller is having second thoughts – his dream buyer is just not out there.