Blogs at Amazon

« Automobubbling | Main | 1995-1999 Oldsmobile Aurora »

Stutz Cars of the 1970s

In the mid-'70s, I had a job during Christmas break working in a coin shop. One of my employers, whose name was Don, was very much into leisure suits, fancy watches, and gold jewelry. One afternoon, Don casually mentioned that he's thinking of buying a car. "A Stutz. You probably never heard of 'em."

This_car_is_ugly

"A Stutz Bearcat? I know what that is. They're beautiful old cars."

"It's not an antique," he corrected. "These cars are brand new. They only make 25 or 50 a year. Here, let me show you."

He handed me a glossy full-color brochure depicting the vehicle in high-class settings: ambling down a pastoral back road, parked at a country club, in the driveway of a mansion. The male model in the photos was a youngish hipster in a leisure suit, sporting a fancy watch and a lot of gold--could've been Don's twin brother. (Whoever designed the brochure sure knew his target audience!) The "Stutz" in the pictures, though, was no Bearcat.

Bearcats were all business, no nonsense sports cars. This was the exact opposite:  all nonsense, no business even pretending to be a sports car. It had typical mid-70s "personal luxury car" lines, accented with fake side-pipes and an extra helping of maximum-strength Elvis-grade kitsch. It looked like a mutant Oldsmobile Cutlass customized by Liberace.

I was stunned. How could the storied Stutz name have become attached to this ... this ... THING?

The story of the "revived" Stutz Motor Car Company of the 1970s is a story of a great designer and a good idea gone disco-era wrong.

The Esquire/Renwal revival cars

Exner_packard_2 In 1963, Esquire magazine commissioned the talented stylist Virgil Exner (of "Forward Look" fame) to imagine what the 1966 models of some defunct luxury automobile makes would look like had the manufacturers been able to stay in business. This project resulted in "revival car" designs for a hypothetical '66 Stutz, Duesenberg, Packard, and Mercer which were published in the magazine's December issue. These designs were turned into 1:25 plastic models by Renwal, a firm perhaps best known for its "Visible Man" and "Visible V-8" kits. Mr. Exner produced additional 1:25 model kit designs for a '66 Bugatti, Pierce-Arrow, and Jordan Playboy.

Exner_jordan_2 If nothing else, these designs show just how good Virgil Exner was. Each captures the styling cues of its historic antecedent, yet also looks like a plausible 1966 production car. Viewed from forty-some years later, a couple of the designs are downright prophetic. Exner's "'66 Jordan" is very close to the first-generation Olds Toronado. His "'66 Packard" could pass for a mid-70s Ford or Mercury personal luxury car if you just gave it a little more chrome on the front end.

From styrene to sheetmetal

It didn't take long for someone to get the idea to build Exner's revival cars in 1:1 scale. An  "Exner Bugatti" was built by Italian custom carbuilder Ghia on the chassis of the last Bugatti T-101. Exner's "Mercer" design was produced as a show car on a Shelby Cobra chassis by the American Copper Development Association, with copper trim in place of the usual chrome or stainless steel.

66_deusenbergThe revival cars also inspired a group of investors to start up a new Deusenberg car company in 1966. They proposed building a car to a design by Exner that borrowed styling elements from several of the revival cars. Deusenberg managed to produce one prototype vehicle--a 5,700-pound, 20-foot, suicide-doored luxobarge on a Chrysler Imperial chassis--but the firm ran out of venture capital before it could start full production. The lone '66 Duesey (pictured at right) was seized by unpaid creditors, but escaped the crusher and survives in a private collection.

If at first you don't succeed, ...

While Deusenberg Part Deux was a failure, the business model it was trying to follow wasn't such a bad idea: build a low-volume uniquely-styled quasi-custom car for upmarket buyers, using running gear from one of the Big Three. By going with an off-the-shelf chassis and drivetrain, you could save yourself the capital expense of all that engineering and foundry tooling. Your customers could be assured to find parts and servicing for their vehicles even if they're the only one in the neighborhood--or in the county--with one of your cars. It was too good an idea not to be tried again.

In 1968, investment banker James O'Donnell formed the "Stutz Motor Car Company of America" and engaged Virgil Exner to design the new Stutz motor car. One must give O'Donnell and Exner credit for succeeding where others failed: they managed to start a new company, design a car, put it into series production, and successfully sell it to an exclusive clientele.

Ugly_ugly_ugly The new company's "Blackhawk" coupe went on sale in 1972, for the then-princely sum of $23,000. (Adjusted for inflation, that's a 2008 sticker price of $118,631, plus tax, title, and dealer prep.) The vehicles were built on a Pontiac Grand Prix chassis by Ghia in Italy, and delivered to the customer by air freight. As high-end luxury cars, they were upholstered in hand-tailored leather--and we don't mean that cheapo "Corinthian" stuff, either! It goes without saying that you could have any color you wanted, inside or out.

It's all about the bling, baby!

The styling of the Blackhawk bears a strong family resemblance to the  revival cars and the stillborn '66 Deusey. The front end looks a lot like the "Pierce-Arrow" kit, the non-functioning side pipes resemble those on the "Deusenberg" and "Bugatti," the roofline is lifted from the "Packard," the exposed spare tire on the decklid comes from Exner's 1963 "Stutz" design, and the swoopy trim line on the fenders and doors echoes the wheel-well accents of the Duesenberg prototype.

And there lies the source of the car's problems, aesthetically speaking.

Aaahhh_my_eyes_hurt In 1963, when the revival cars were first penned, Virgil Exner was trying, in part, to predict future styling trends. The problem was that he did too good a job of predicting. By the early 1970s, automotive styling had largely gone in the directions Exner had forseen, and Detroit had caught up to his 1963 vision. Except for a few "edgy" details--the free-standing headlights and turn signals on the bumper, the fake side pipes, the exposed spare tire--the Stutz Blackhawk looked less like a "car of the future" and more like a pastiche of 1970s personal luxury car styling:

  • The long hood-short deck look was all the rage then.
  • The "formal" roofline, with the wide "sail panel" pioneered by the early-60s Thunderbird, was also quite common.
  • The Blackhawk's wavy side crease resembled the fender flares of the second-generation Monte Carlo.
  • The Stutz's Edsel-esque faux-radiator grille looked like the protruding probiscus that was a styling cue on early-70s Pontiacs and on "Eagle Beak" T-Birds.
  • The optional padded vinyl roof ... well, try to find a two-door "luxury" coupe from the 1970s that didn't have a vinyl roof as an option.
  • Since early '70s "luxury" was also synonymous with bright chrome gewgaws, the Stutz was fully blinged-out. So was every other two-door personal luxury coupe on the road--though the Stutz was the only one with a chrome-plated fake exhaust pipe running the length of the rocker panels.

Elvis_in_vegas_baby

Driving Miss Stutzie

I have been unable to find a first-person account of what it's like to drive one of these machines, but I think I can make an educated guess. It was probably no fun at all.

1970s personal luxury cars were powered by inefficient V-8s emasculated by first-generation emissions control hardware. The suspensions were tuned for softness, not handling, and the power steering employed Detroit's most advanced sensory deprivation technology. In short, they had dreadful driving dynamics. What do you suppose happens if you take a car which already has dreadful driving dynamics and make it 25 percent heavier?

That's what Stutz did. The early-'70s Grand Prix, the Blackhawk's donor car, had a curb weight just under two tons. A finished Blackhawk tipped the scales at a staggering five thousand pounds.

Bling_city_usaI've been unable to find any information on what suspension mods, if any, that Ghia did in the process of converting a Pontiac to a Stutz. The springs had to be stiffened to take the extra weight, or it would bottom out too quickly--yet, the springs could not be stiffened too much or it would lose its soft ride. Nor could you add sway bars, or tweak the power steering to add a lot of road feel, without offending customer expectations.

All in all, it's probably not a car I'd want to take on speed runs through the twisties--not that it's all that capable of "speed runs" to begin with. One source quotes a 0-60 time of 12.5 seconds, which sounds like a best-case scenario.

As might be expected of such a heavy car in that era, the fuel economy was a dismal 8 MPG. Eight.

"... and your point is?"

None of the vehicle's many aesthetic and performance shortcomings seem to have mattered much. Demand for the new Blackhawk was so great, relative to the number that Ghia could turn out, that Stutz could nearly double the price, to a confiscatory $43,000, just a year after its introduction. (That's $208,800 in today's dollars, kids.)

Stutzes_graceland The reason for this is that the '72 Stutz was very good at meeting its customers' primary objective. Nobody bought a Blackhawk for how it cornered or how it accelerated, and Stutz buyers were too wealthy to need to care much about that single-digit gas mileage. What Stutz buyers really wanted was to be noticed--and if there's one thing a Stutz Blackhawk is good for, it's attracting attention. Unless you go to a Stutz owners' meet, you can be certain that your Stutz will be the only one you see on the road. It will be the only one anyone around you sees, either. It will be noticed.

A significant fraction of the Blackhawk's total production run ended up in the hands of entertainers and celebrities--people who, not to put too fine a point on it, make their living by attracting attention to themselves. The first new Stutz Blackhawk was sold to one Elvis Aaron Presley, who eventually bought four more. The customer list also included Sammy Davis Jr., Willy Nelson, Dean Martin, Jerry Lewis, Lucille Ball, Billy Joel, Elton John, Paul McCartney, Evel Knievel, Al Pacino, Frank Sinatra, and Wayne Newton. Quite a few were also sold to Middle Eastern royalty.

The Stutz Motor Car Company of America manufactured well over six hundred vehicles before production petered out in 1995. Most were Blackhawks, but it also built some four-door sedans, a run of "Bearcat" targa convertibles, seven Cadillac-based limousines, and two "Royale" super-stretch limos. The firm is still in existence, and seems to be planning a comeback.

One man's car disgust is another man's car lust

As you probably figured out a couple hundred words ago, I don't find the 1970s Stutz appealing. It's too big, too slow, too soft, too Seventies, and far too overstated for my tastes. That ridiculous fake side pipe annoys me. Car Disgust.

Virgil_exner_jr There are people out there who quite strongly disagree with me--the small but energetic community of revival-era Stutz owners. Virgil Exner, Jr., pictured at right, is one of them. They maintain a registry, catalog minute variations in trim and equipment, rescue knackered, neglected, and partially destroyed Stutz cars from the scrapyard and restore them to their original glory, and collect Stutz-related knick-knacks. Every so often, a group of them gets together for a meet and turns a humble parking lot into Bling City USA.

These people have Car Lust.

I can't get worked up about the object of their affections, but they seem to be having a good time, enjoying each other's company and the challenge of restoring and maintaining these unique artifacts. At the end of the day, isn't that what really matters?

All the illustrations came from The Internet Guide to Stutz Cars History and Models, which is as good a source as you will ever find for information on these unusual vehicles and their fans.

--Cookie the Dog's Owner

See also: "More on the 1970s Stutz" and "The Exner Files"

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54ed05fc2883300e5543bfa508834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stutz Cars of the 1970s:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I had the Hot Wheels version of one of these Stutzes when I was a kid, and I had a serious case of Car Lust for the real thing. Over the years I forgot about it until I saw Cookie the Dog Owner's post here.

Um, yeah. I can't imagine wanting a car less. Well, maybe the similar Zimmer Quicksilver. Who in their right mind wants *more* tackiness than a run-of-the-mill 1970s personal luxury car? Well, they got their wish here.

All of the elements that looked so good on the Hot Wheels car - the exposed pipes, the angular lines, the character line and of course the heinous rear tire on the decklid - look ridiculous on a full-size car. It's like a mockup of a car for a Dolemite movie. I could see the Joker driving this car in the old, cheesy Batman movies. The car is basically a cartoon and an unholy stain on Virgil Exner's good name.

My bad-car instincts *almost* kicked in here. I saw the photo second from the bottom, showing a row of Stutzes from their best angle, cropping out all the ungainly parts, and I thought, "Hey, actually .... nah."

Great piece, though. I always wondered why these cars could get away with using the proud Stutz name.

Okay, those are just weird. And this coming from a guy who actually likes those 1970s personal luxury cars.

I actually like some of the pieces individually. But, like ketchup and a banana split, once you put them together. . . .

What a terrific story! Sammy Davis Jr's name popped into my head as soon as I saw the first picture, and then bingo! There he was on the list of owners.

If you want to realllllly stretch the point, these cars can be considered direct descendants of the Facel-Vega. The counter argument, of course, is that Facel-Vega built a car and dropped a Chrysler V8 into the engine compartment, while Stutz took the shortcut described in the story. But from a market segment point of view, the Stutz & Facel were cut from the same cloth.

I remember being excited at the notion of an Imperial-based Duesenberg (note spelling) when the pics first hit the magazines forty-plus years ago. The Imperial was an ideal donor car, being body-on-frame at the time. And 5700 pounds wasn't significantly more than the Imperial weighed. All they'd really have to do was crank the front torsion bars a bit tighter, add a leaf to each rear spring (leaf springs!), spec some different shocks, and they'd be in business. Well, maybe better brakes, too.

Alas, in '67 the Imperial began to share the unibody frame of the standard Chrysler, which probably would have doomed the scheme regardless of capitalization.

Who in their right mind wants *more* tackiness than a run-of-the-mill 1970s personal luxury car? Well, they got their wish here.

Isn't that what Xibit and his boys do on MTV on a regular basis?

Wow. Hmm. Well.

I think there's an issue of taste and "volatility" here. Tastes of a particular time just don't translate well - or last. The distinct aesthetic that marks the 1970s was obviously foreseen and perhaps created by Exner. Were the disco cars of the 1970's a natural evolution of economic conditions and consumerism or did his 1960s work completely influence the tide of design in the 70s? Did Exner have a tap on the economic future of the country at the time... a move towards increasing levels of excess? Hard to say. His eye was clearly more refined than the resultant designs of the 70s. He designed big but his vision was pretty clean given all the chrome and wings that must have surrounded him.

I'm guessing that he influenced the future with his work. And a half a generation later designers who had seen his work began to work off of it.

The thing that really gets me is that there was a mesh of tastes here - a fertile ground - people were eager to embrace this direction. That's where volatility comes in. The appeal of these cars keys directly into the minds of 3-5 year old boys who think Elvis impersonators are really cool. BUT what appealed to a 5yr old also appealed to the adult buying populace of the time. How does that happen?

Today a car like this could only be a joke. Comparing these cars to anything before or after would just highlight the breadth of that joke.

What was going on. How could "taste" (here defined as "good taste" the ability to be discerning and aware of proportion and balance) go so far off track. And it is clearly very far off track.

The joke that comes to mind is something about "pimp my ride". But these cars were in many ways competing with original pimp-mobiles, and similar production cars (the ones they were built from). And all of it was completely over the top and grotesque. I can't help but think of a James Bond 007 movie with Roger Moore. It was set in New Orleans and New York City. There were quintessential pimp-mobiles and leisure suits wall to wall in that flick.

At some point this faded, perhaps it was one of the many recessions of the 70s, or the gas-crises. Who knows. But you can't help ask yourself "What were they thinking. What they hell were they thinking".

Cookie this is a great story. I think you've done an expert job of chronicling the trajectory of these cars. And I think that you've also hit on a key factor in their appeal - "being noticed". It would be impossible not to be noticed in one of these things. And in a world of extreme pimp-mobiles, or waiting-to-happen-pimp-mobiles, these things still were able to standout. Like Liberace's jackets, great bejeweled and guilt pianos, and ornate candelabra these cars stand as a testament to a competition of excess in a time of nationalism, economic exuberance, and technological positivism. It's not hard to see how this kind of thing could come out of a time of such extremes as the late 1960s - cultural chaos and space race hysteria... "we can do anything, so we will". Its just hard to figure out exactly what the mechanism was. You can predict that there will be an anomaly or a disaster, you just don't know what form it will take.

The part about being noticed? I guess we never really lost that. The zeit geist of taste may have improved somewhat, SUVs are the new somewhat cleaner pimp mobiles and badges of excess, but we still need to broadcast ourselves on youtube and collect friends on myspace and facebook. These cars are not that different than an episode of Jerry Springer.

In the end I want to do something about these cars. But I'm conflicted and sure what should be done with these lumbering rococo behemoths - throw-backs to the court of Louis XIV, the French Sun King. Part of me says put them in museums and join the preservationists. In a way it would be a shame to lose these uniquely awful objects. They are archaeological artifacts so that counts for something. And I've tried to be more gracious in my response to things that don't mesh with my personal taste... I'm better than I used to be about rendering harsh judgments. In the end there's a part of me that wants to go to one of these car meets. I want to visit BlingCityUSA, but unfortunately I want to bring a can of gasoline and some matches. So I probably should not go and ruin the party.

Mochi - You're thinking of "Live & Let Die". It's a quintessentially '70s Bond flick if there ever was one, that's for sure. It's also Jane Seymour's most politically incorrect role. In fact, my suspicion is that, were she not a Bond girl at one point in her life, she never would've felt compelled to throw together "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman" later in life.

These Stutzes are kind of like that super-steak you see on the menu at some cheesy steakhouse in the middle of nowhere, where if you eat the whole thing within an hour, they'll take your picture and put you on their wall. Ordering that steak gets you noticed. Driving that Stutz will similarly get you noticed, and for many of the same reasons. Is that good? I don't know. What I do know is that it IS... it just IS.

Of course, now I have to wonder what a modern-day Studebaker SUV would look like...

David, Mochi: The "pimpmobile" in "Live and Let Die" was a Dunham Corvorado, which is quite possibly the most awful thing to come out of the 1970s. You can see pictures here: http://www.madle.org/ecorvorado.htm (Eye protection recommended.)

Someone associated with the latter-day incarnation of Avanti did try to market a Studebaker SUV. It looks like a Hummer. Pictures here: http://www.theavanti.com/xuv.htm GM sued them for trademark infringement; whether because of the lawsuit or other factors, the vehicle never went into production.

Cookie the Dog's Owners: "The "pimpmobile" in "Live and Let Die" was a Dunham Corvorado, which is quite possibly the most awful thing to come out of the 1970s."

Wow! See, the Corvorado might be so bad that it comes back around to good again. I love the paint job, the over-the-top wire wheels, and whatever the heck is going on at the rear end. It's almost a statement of absurdist humor, and I love it.

As a longtime Stutz owner and one whose picture and cars you are showing I appreciate your balanced overview of the Exner/Stutz story. It is true that the car was conceived as 'what would they look like now'(30 years or so after all of those revival cars stopped production) but ended up being an Exner styling exercise marketed to people who wanted a vehicle to match their larger than life lifestyle(or success). The 70's were also an era of conspicuous consumption which helped feed the popularity of the car.
One of the things I love about the cars is that no one, absolutely no one, is neutral about them. Yes, you do get noticed. And, contrary to the impression one would get if reading only the comments posted here to date, many people find them 'beautiful'. Now I don't use that word to upset people who don't believe this but only to report the word most used to me by the many people who have come up to me to find out more about the car because they enjoyed seeing it. Stutz is definitely an acquired taste and one that most people who are into mainstream muscle/sports vehicles aren't likely to ever get. But hey, it would be a boring place if we all liked the same thing.
I'll be at the Lake Mirror Classic with my Bearcat convertible in Lakeland FL Oct 17-19 showing what I enjoy.

Jim Milliken: "I appreciate your balanced overview of the Exner/Stutz story."

Agreed that Cookie the Dog's Owner did an outstanding job with this, discussing the background and the car without hiding his opinion, but also presenting a very fair viewpoint. Whatever you think of the design aesthetic, it's a pretty fascinating story and an interesting car.

Jim Milliken: "But hey, it would be a boring place if we all liked the same thing. "

Amen to that, and bravo to you for being so fair-minded. The purpose of this blog is to celebrate your statement exactly. I may not share your appreciation of the Stutz*, but what a sadder place this world would be if you bowed to prevailing wisdom and traded it in for a Camry.

Kudos to you for finding a car that brings you joy and enjoying it, critics (including me) be damned.

* I may not share your appreciation now, but as I mentioned in my comment I was absolutely *rabid* for the Stutz when Iwas a kid.

You know... I can handle the awful styling, the lack of performance, the horrid choice of colors/textures, but man... that teeny tiny wheelbase on such a huge car just looks stupid.

Jim Milliken: Very much appreciate the kind words about my article. This website is about interesting cars and irrational emotions. The Stutz is certainly an interesting car,and it does provoke an emotional reaction! I'd never want one myself, but I am glad you get such enjoyment out of yours.

I would be very interested in hearing what it's like to drive one from someone like you who's actually done it.

Cookie the Dog's Owner,
A couple of items you might want to update in the article: Only the prototype was made by Ghia at a cost of 300,000. The first year of production was 1971, not 72. The cars that first year were bodied by Padane(who built Maserati's) My 71 has Maserati bucket seats and dash guages. All later years were built by Carrozeria Saturno(Saturn Coachworks) outside Torino. I visited Saturn twice in 84 and 86 to get parts for my cars.
In answer to your suspension question-all Stutzes have rear air shocks to aid in handling the extra weight.
I agree with your hating of the fake sidepipes so I have converted three of mine to real sidepipes, including the 81 which you show with Virgil Exner Jr and his wife as the last picture in this article.
For the driving experience which you asked about, I can say that the handling and performance is about as uninspiring as you might expect. It isn't for handling and I pushed my 75 with the 455 to the max and couldn't get it over 100 mph. It is not very aerodynamic to put it mildly. However what did impress me is that when driving it I felt like I 'built' the road. I mean the close cockpit feel, especially on the 71, the smell of the leather was like being in a library, the wood paneling surrounding you and looking out over that long hood with the headlights piercing the visual plane made me feel like I owned road. Now you must recognize that Car Lust has entered the equation so don't be too hard on me. I have driven the 75 and 81 from San Diego to Ft Myers and people circled us on the freeway with video cameras running giving us thumbs up. Every rest stop we were beseiged with appreciative visitors. And this is admittedly a trip for the driver. However what I realized from my many showings of these cars is that people are starved for something different. Anything to relieve the jelly bean car shapes that they have had shoved on them for the last fifteen years. It ain't so much that they love the car it is that is scratches their 'different' itch. Does this meet the "irrational emotion" criteria you mention?
Many of the rich owners kept their cars like a pieces of art and trucked them between their various houses when they relocated. The cars were marketed for their 'exclusivity'. And obviously some bought into that sales pitch.
Regarding the wheelbase as mentioned by Rob the SUV guy. It wasn't 'tiny' as the Grand Prix was a large car. When the Grand Prix was downsized in 78 the Stutz Blackhawk moved to a bigger platform which was the Bonneville. The Bearcat II's were all on a Trans Am chassis and were much shorter cars. But then there were only 13 built and they were the only cars that didn't have steel bodies(diamond fibre as they called it).
Jim Milliken

Jim: Thanks again for sharing your experiences as a Stutz owner, and for correcting me on some of the details.

I think Rob may have been referring to the Corvorado in his comment.

Hi Kooky,

Please contact me if you care to print the whole truth in this matter. Most 'scribes' don't. They don't use their real names, either. They just want to make controversy. You are certainly suceeding in that!

Virgil

Hello to all. Like Jim Milliken, I am also a Stutz owner. In fact I own two of them. A 74 and 81. Both are Blackhawk’s. I just love the lines of these cars. Jim was right on the money when he stated that there isn't anything special the way these cars drive but what makes a car worth the money is how it makes you feel. Also, James O'Donnell the founder of the company really tried to make a quality product. These cars were completely hand built and used only the finest materials available. As Jim states, Stutz does get a lot of attention but most of it is very positive. It's fun to watch people at car shows literally stop in their tracks, and just stare at the car. Then they smile and tell me, they think it's very cool. Of course there will be those people that think it's hideous. But as Jim also said no one is neutral. You do get the occasional YAHOO who is just down right rude. But, it comes with the territory. By the way, the two tone car in the beginning of your article is my 81. At the local, Concourse D'Elegance Show this year it won its class in the seventies Classic division. My 74 sevearl years ago won "Best In Show" at the same event. I guess more people like them then not.

would have purchased the 1979 stutz blackhawk but after driving it home it wouldn't fit in my garage. This is 2008 and I still like the car, it is simple, not fast, attention getter to the max.

All I can think of when I see this thing is Mitsuoka

Hi everybody. It seems that Stutz affects people, both negative and positive. I am one of those who like the design of Stutz cars, especially the 1971 which have the split windshield and a little smoother lines (in my opinion) than the later Stutzes. I used to have a 1974 Stutz too, but I sold it a couple of years ago. But I still have my 71 Stutz which I drive every now and then. And as you're saying, it gets comments where ever I come. Some people like it, some don't. The only thing I don't like myself about Stutz is the big headlights. I've would prefer smaller dual headlight. Think it would have looked neater.

A friend of mine once told me a funny story about his Stutz. He had just bought his car and was of course very proud of it. One day he was talking about cars with some guy. After a while the guy said to my friend "that he had seen the most ugly car in the world...it looks like Marty Feldman in the front, and a waffle iron in the back! And the name of the car is Stutz".
Well, I just bought one of those, my friend answered.
:o)

//Bengt Dahlgren

Hello,
I bought a car Stutz Black Hawk 1971 in black color, its number 7 i can see. Y bought it in Belgium. Can anybody say me, who was the first owner ??
Greating from Holland. g.p.w.hilhorst@hilhorst.nl

It looks like a Mercury Montego MX Brougham - there's a 70's PLC I loved - with an an aftermarket body kit by the folks who brought us the Bradley GT... or perhaps those who brought us the VW Rolls Royce hoods and Continental trunk lids (One of my best buds in HS had both on his '68 Beetle - what an abomination it was in that Dr. Pepper red-burgundy).

I'd prefer the Continental Mk. III from that era myself. Especially today, as cherry examples seem to be as rare as hen's teeth now.


There is something profoundly serious to be realized beneath the surfaces of these voluptuously silly and now laughed-at automobiles.....that as a post-AIDS, post-Internet culture we have lost the innocence of a time when big industry and captalism once held hands to bring to market the ideal of a sexual paradise-on-wheels, freed from the previous generation's religious guilt and shame, and manifesting itself in the proudly phallic peacock-displays of thrusting chrome pipes, veleveteen cush, and pimped-out black street culture.

What we drive now tells us a much sadder and even more frightening story of our times...one of faceless conformity, sexlessness, and cold, militaristic design.

I have a 74 in my showroom. It is magnificent. Yet anyone who claims to be interested in buying it seems to have just left a mental Hospital. The translation is no money blues. Its oK we wait.

Hello, can anyone help me to find the first owner of my Stutz Black Hawk 1971 Color Black with red interieur. It has number 276579P362367, or the whole story about it? Maybe it is nr. 7?
I am bought the car in Belgium 2009 en restored one the moment compleetly

thank you very much!!

g.p.w.hilhorst@hilhorst.nl in the Netherlands.

Hello everyone is this site dead????


greetings of a Stutz Fan

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In.

Pictured above: This is a forlorn Chevy Vega photographed by reader Gary Sinar. (Share yours)

Powered by Rollyo

Car Lust™ Contributors

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31