GTP Cool Wall: 1964-1966 Studebaker Daytona

1964-1966 Studebaker Daytona


  • Total voters
    91
  • Poll closed .
15,467
United States
Orange County, NY
GTP_GT916
Nii916
1964-1966 Studebaker Daytona nominated by @Adamgp
dayt.jpg


Engines:
170 ci (2.8L) I6, 194 ci (3.2L) I6, 259 ci (4.2L) V8, 283 ci (4.6L) V8, 289 ci (4.7L) V8, 289 ci (4.7L) Supercharged V8, 304.5 ci (5.0L) V8, 304.5 ci (5.0L) Supercharged V8
Power: 170: 112 hp; 194: 120 hp; 259: 180-195 hp; 283: 195 hp; 289: 200-240 hp; 289 SC: 289 hp; 304.5: 280 hp; 304.5 SC: 335 hp
Torque: 170: 154 lb-ft.; 194: 177 lb-ft.; 259: 260-265 lb-ft.; 283: 285 lb-ft.; 289: 295-305 lb-ft.; 289 SC: 305 lb-ft.; 304.5: 340 lb-ft.; 304.5 SC: 305 lb-ft.
Weight: 1255-1590 kg
Transmission: 3-speed automatic, 3-speed manual, 4-speed manual
Drivetrain: Front engine, rear wheel drive
Body Styles: 2-door hardtop coupe, 2-door convertible, 4-door sedan, 4-door wagon
Additional Info: "Studebaker had a little fun in their final years. They offered Avanti engines, suspension, LSD and brakes as an option on their mild little compact, creating the "Super Lark". An R4 equipped car would run about even with a Tri-Power GTO."​
Ed%20Meyer's%201964%20Studebaker%20Daytona%20Wagonaire.JPG

1965_studebaker_daytona_wagonaire_v8_not_running_sliding_roof_1_lgw.jpg

1280px-1964_Studebaker_Daytona_Sedan.jpg

1965%20Studebaker%20Daytona%202%20Door%20Sedan%20(2).jpg

P4182099.JPG

sk1964daytonaconvertible53941513.jpg

1964_studebaker_daytona_convertible_-_gold_-_interior.jpg
 
Looks like an ugly Chrysler product. It doesn't have any of the Studebaker charm that their cars had in the '50s. SU by a hair.
 
While nothing screams "Daytona" like the Perennial wagon from GTA, they did do away with the awful Mercedes Lark grille. Something the coupe/cabrio and sedan models really benefited from.

Low Cool.
 
Very low cool. Light-ish weight and supercharged 5.0 with 4 on the floor? Can't go utterly wrong with that.
 
Great little sleeper. Good power, light weight and Avanti suspension made the R-spec Daytonas a good all around performer.

Easy Sub Zero.
 
If it wasn't for the badge and the drive train options it would have been meh, it's just so bland.

But awesomeness is hidden inside so cool it is.
 
Lost the fabulous looks of previous models, and I bet 95% of these come with one of the smaller engines, so uncool it is.
 
I'd say the coupe and particularly the convertible are cool, but the wagon and sedan look really dull. On balance, just going with cool.
 
The first one in the OP looks like an old Datsun, which is no bad thing. The wagon and convertible variants are very pretty too. Interesting sleeper I'd not come across before. Solid Cool.
 
The freaking wagon has a sliding roof. Come on.

I did like that... but too many conditionals for it to be cool. If we were polling only the wagon with the big engine, easy SZ, but the model range as a whole has too many flaws.
 
It's not an ugly car by any stretch.

Alright, lets see some more pics that do it more justice, then, because aside from the very cool sliding roof shot, nothing in the OP looked very good at all. Can't officially change my vote, but you might change my mind.
 

Latest Posts

Back