Jump to content

R3 Option!


mfg
 Share

Recommended Posts

Studebaker offered the R3 Avanti engine as an option in all their 1963 & 1964 automobiles.......True?

Edited by mfg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, r1lark said:

Since I don't believe the R3 was available at the start of 1963 production, I'll say FALSE.

Sorry Paul, it was available from the get-go!:(....Answer...TRUE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, r1lark said:

Since I don't believe the R3 was available at the start of 1963 production, I'll say FALSE.

 

55 minutes ago, mfg said:

Sorry Paul, it was available from the get-go!:(....Answer...TRUE!

Paul is correct, check your facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, regnalbob said:

 

Paul is correct, check your facts.

Sorry, but you are wrong again Regnalbob! (WOW, you really haven't been doing very well with these trivia questions lately:(!!)

As explained by George Krem on PG 18 of the June, 2019 TURNING WHEELS,  the AMA specification sheet dated July 23, 1962 listed the R3 engine as a 1963 Studebaker option!

To be clear, none were built on the assembly line, however, it indeed WAS a 1963 option.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sales Letter 161 states that the R3  "...will be available on or about August 1, 1963."  This is near the end of 1963 model production, so the answer is False (or True depending on your interpretation of the wording of your statement).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, studegary said:

Sales Letter 161 states that the R3  "...will be available on or about August 1, 1963."  This is near the end of 1963 model production, so the answer is False (or True depending on your interpretation of the wording of your statement).  

Please read my post to Regnalbob....Answer...True!;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a Studebaker Sales Letter that announces this to the Dealers? It's one thing to tell the AMA that the R3 will be an option (to make 'back door' hand-built engines legal for various forms of racing}. But if no official Studebaker notification was provided to the Dealers informing them of the option, cost, ordering info, etc how could that be a true option? I don't know, maybe more knowledgeable folks can carry on this debate. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mfg said:

Sorry, but you are wrong again Regnalbob! (WOW, you really haven't been doing very well with these trivia questions lately:(!!)

As explained by George Krem on PG 18 of the June, 2019 TURNING WHEELS,  the AMA specification sheet dated July 23, 1962 listed the R3 engine as a 1963 Studebaker option!

To be clear, none were built on the assembly line, however, it indeed WAS a 1963 option.:)

Sorry, the answer is false.

The Studebaker Confidential Price List for 1963 does not list the R3 as an option for any model 1963 Studebaker.

Studebaker takes precedent over the AMA and you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, r1lark said:

Is there a Studebaker Sales Letter that announces this to the Dealers? It's one thing to tell the AMA that the R3 will be an option (to make 'back door' hand-built engines legal for various forms of racing}. But if no official Studebaker notification was provided to the Dealers informing them of the option, cost, ordering info, etc how could that be a true option? I don't know, maybe more knowledgeable folks can carry on this debate. :) 

Sales Letter 161 (as I posted above), is dated 6/10/63, shows the R3 as being available 8/1/63.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, r1lark said:

Is there a Studebaker Sales Letter that announces this to the Dealers? It's one thing to tell the AMA that the R3 will be an option (to make 'back door' hand-built engines legal for various forms of racing}. But if no official Studebaker notification was provided to the Dealers informing them of the option, cost, ordering info, etc how could that be a true option? I don't know, maybe more knowledgeable folks can carry on this debate. :) 

Here is the letter.

1678656160_R-3SalesLetter.jpegMAIN.thumb.jpeg.c978fb926e621eeb944362bf41d6e395.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, regnalbob said:

Sorry, the answer is false.

The Studebaker Confidential Price List for 1963 does not list the R3 as an option for any model 1963 Studebaker.

Studebaker takes precedent over the AMA and you.

I always get a chuckle when Regnalbob tries to re-create history:D!!...STUDEBAKER CORPORATION announced to the (then) Automobile Manufacturers Association in the summer of 1962 that the AVANTI R3 ENGINE will be an option for their 1963 line of passenger cars.

The AMA put that information in writing on JULY 23, 1962....far predating the document Bob posted.

The fact that no 1963 Studebakers were assembled with R3 engines simply means that no one ordered one! (like no one ordered a 1964 GT Hawk with an R4 engine,....or a 1964 Avanti with an R4 engine)

The Granatellis, at Paxton, certainly would have had the ability to build an R3 engine in late '62 or early '63 if Studebaker had ordered it!

The answer to this Avanti Trivia question, like it or not, is TRUE....Unless you want to challenge Studebaker, the AMA, or anyone else. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, r1lark said:

Is there a Studebaker Sales Letter that announces this to the Dealers? It's one thing to tell the AMA that the R3 will be an option (to make 'back door' hand-built engines legal for various forms of racing}. But if no official Studebaker notification was provided to the Dealers informing them of the option, cost, ordering info, etc how could that be a true option? I don't know, maybe more knowledgeable folks can carry on this debate. :) 

Please read my last (and final post on this subject) to Regnalbob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do give Regnalbob credit for his tenacity, and also that he didn't feel it necessary to "block out" portions of his R3 document, as he did the Studebaker document he posted as a rebuttal in the "Avanti Wires" trivia question.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mfg said:

Sorry, but you are wrong again Regnalbob! (WOW, you really haven't been doing very well with these trivia questions lately:(!!)

 

2 hours ago, mfg said:

I always get a chuckle when Regnalbob tries to re-create history:D!!..

 

2 hours ago, mfg said:

I do give Regnalbob credit for his tenacity, and also that he didn't feel it necessary to "block out" portions of his R3 document, as he did the Studebaker document he posted as a rebuttal in the "Avanti Wires" trivia question.:)

You never seem to be at a loss for petty and inane comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, regnalbob said:

 

 

You never seem to be at a loss for petty and inane comments.

Sorry you feel that way, however, in the meantime think about this........... "It's what you learn after you know it all that counts".......Wooden

Have a nice day!:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, mfg said:

Sorry you feel that way, however, in the meantime think about this........... "It's what you learn after you know it all that counts".......Wooden

Have a nice day!:)

I never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I intended not to respond again on this trivia question, as it's postings unfortunately became quite negative........However, interesting information was provided to me that's probably worth mentioning regarding the 1963 Studebaker R3 engine option.......  Studebaker Sales Letter (103), which I unfortunately do not have a copy of, apparently indicated the Avanti R3 engine to be available....Interestingly,the letter mentioned Studebaker felt the R3 engine was not ideally suited for city driving under heavy traffic conditions.... That statement could have had an impact on a customer who might have been considering ordering an R3 for his new 1963 Studebaker......This Sales letter, sent to Studebaker dealers, was dated September 27th, 1962.

(Note the AMA letter mentioned above, which is dated JULY 23rd, 1962)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mfg said:

I intended not to respond again on this trivia question, as it's postings unfortunately became quite negative........However, interesting information was provided to me that's probably worth mentioning regarding the 1963 Studebaker R3 engine option.......  Studebaker Sales Letter (103), which I unfortunately do not have a copy of, apparently indicated the Avanti R3 engine to be available....Interestingly,the letter mentioned Studebaker felt the R3 engine was not ideally suited for city driving under heavy traffic conditions.... That statement could have had an impact on a customer who might have been considering ordering an R3 for his new 1963 Studebaker......This Sales letter, sent to Studebaker dealers, was dated September 27th, 1962.

(Note the AMA letter mentioned above, which is dated JULY 23rd, 1962)

Sales Letter 103 does NOT say that it is available at that time (9/27/62).  It does state that it is a 299 ci engine built in California and; " In view of the current backlog of unfilled Avanti orders, no firm delivery date can be promised at this time.  Pricing information will be furnished later."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, studegary said:

Sales Letter 103 does NOT say that it is available at that time (9/27/62).  It does state that it is a 299 ci engine built in California and; " In view of the current backlog of unfilled Avanti orders, no firm delivery date can be promised at this time.  Pricing information will be furnished later."  

Good info Gary!....Although it was completely new at the time, there's no doubt Studebaker would have supplied its R3 engine if a customer insisted on it for a '63 model...although there would probably be an extended waiting time:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Desert Driver said:

Wow...this one went the distance. Depends for all!

Hey...maybe we should all buy stock in "DEPENDS" !!:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Avanti Trivia question goes to show how we should NEVER say NEVER when it comes to Studebaker automobile production....A good example is a 1955 Speedster I'm quite familiar with....It was special ordered with the 'normal' front fender top ornaments, and the 'normal' hood center spear DELETED......These deleted items changes the frontal appearance of that Speedster quite a bit from the stock 'look' Studebaker was trying to sell....... Did Studebaker build that Speedster to the customers spec.......OF COURSE THEY DID.......Studebaker, of all the American car companies, wasn't going to disappoint a customer and possibly 'blow' a sale!...(MONEY TALKS!:D)

Hence, if someone actually ordered an R3 engine for his/her new Studebaker in late '62 or early '63....they no doubt would have gotten it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mfg said:

Hey...maybe we should all buy stock in "DEPENDS" !!:D

If you want stock in it, you should get the name correct.  It is Depend (even though most people say Depends).😀  Of course, Depend is probably owned by some larger corporation, like P&G (I didn't bother to look it up. - I don't plan on buying the stock.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2022 at 9:48 AM, regnalbob said:

I never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

An entertaining quote!.....however, regnalbob "forgot" to give credit to its author.....a man named WINSTON CHURCHILL.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...