No vehicle starts out as a shitbox. Okay, maybe you could make a case for some of the usual suspects: Chevy Vega, Yugo, things like that. But for the most part, making a shitbox requires time, mileage, and neglect. And sometimes, it requires welding together two or more old neglected vehicles to create something new. Whether you think the rat rod phenomenon is a breath of fresh air in the hot-rodding universe, or a scary way to use up parts that belong in a junkyard, one thing we can all agree on is that rat rods are definitely shitboxes.
We started out our week of weird choices with a couple of pre-war cars yesterday, and it was another case of the comments not matching the vote tally. I thought for sure the Model T was going to walk away with it. Lots of commenters wanted to try driving it, for the same reason I want to drive one someday: out of respect for its place in history. But in the end, the little Bantam roadster beat it in the poll by more than two to one.
I would jump at the chance to drive either one of these, actually, even if it was just around a parking lot. But I can roughly guess how the Bantam drives; I’ve driven other small cars with non-synchro gearboxes before. I have no frame of reference for the Model T, and that makes it more intriguing.
The term “rat rod” is pretty poorly defined; it can really refer to any modified car that doesn’t have a shiny finish. Body work is much harder than mechanical work, so some hot rodders skip the shiny paint, and just fix up mechanical stuff. The result is a rusty, patinated mess that hauls ass. But sometimes, a rat rod is just a jumble of crap welded together. And it can be hard to tell which is which if you don’t know what you’re looking at. These two are rusty, patinated messes for sure. Is either of them worth it underneath? Let’s take a look and find out.
1946 Studebaker truck, more or less – $31,900
Engine/drivetrain: 14-liter two-stroke diesel V12, automatic of some sort, RWD
Location: Sardis, OH
Odometer reading: unknown
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Take an old truck body, drop it onto a more modern frame, and cram the biggest engine you can find into it, and what do you get? This. It’s a ’46 Studebaker cab, on some sort of much heavier-duty truck frame, which obviously required some width to be added to the fenders. It looks like something straight out of a Mad Max movie, but it was actually built for a burnout competition, of all things.
What does it take to spin those big rear dualies into a cloud of tire smoke? Power and torque, as much of it as you can get. In this case, that means a Detroit Diesel 12V71. Twelve cylinders, each one with more displacement than an entire Geo Metro, making 450 horsepower and 1,200 pound-feet of torque. It has an automatic transmission, but that’s all the seller says. I’m guessing it’s not just your basic Turbo 400. It runs and drives great, according to the seller, but personally I can’t imagine keeping something that wide between the lines on the road.
The thing about hot rods, rat or otherwise, is that safety is rarely a concern. A car only has to meet the safety standards of the model year on the title, no matter what else has been done to it. This is a 1946 Studebaker in the eyes of the law, and the entirety of automotive safety features in 1946 was “don’t crash.” Someone has added seat belts to this one, at least, but it also has absolutely bizarre seats. It also appears to come with noise-cancelling headphones, which tells you all you need to know about how comfortable it is inside.
I really want to know how wide this silly thing actually is. The original Studebaker M-series was about 80 inches wide, about the same as most full-size pickups, but this one has had about eight inches added to each side. That would put it at about eight feet wide, which makes me guess that it has semi-truck axles of some type under there. It just looks extra-wide because the cabs of old trucks were so narrow.
1948 White truck, and then some – $3,500
Engine/drivetrain: OHV V8 of unknown displacement, automatic of some sort, RWD
Location: Leechburg, PA
Odometer reading: unknown
Operational status: Runs and drives, needs a new battery
There are absolutely no rules when it comes to putting together a rat rod. If you can make it fit, you’re golden. Cut, bend, grind, and/or hammer a part until it goes where you want it to go, weld it in place, and suddenly it “belongs.” This truck is made up of at least three different vehicles that we know of, and possibly more. The cab (and presumably the title) is from a 1948 White medium-duty truck, the frame and suspension are from a 1952 Studebaker, and the back half of the body is from a 1960 Buick Invicta, narrowed to match the width of the cab. Work with what you have, I guess.
I assumed, when I first looked at this truck, that the engine and transmission were from the ’60 Buick as well, but that is not a Buick nailhead V8. I don’t know what it is, actually. I don’t recognize it. If someone in the comments knows, please enlighten us. I do know that the seller says it runs and drives, but the battery is shot. It also may or may not need a new steering box, which I presume is from Studebaker, but you could probably get something else to work.
Figuring out when a car like this was built is sometimes a challenge, but I think we can probably narrow this one down to the 1970s, based on the interior parts. The GM truck steering column, tiny thick-rimmed Grant steering wheel, and fancy embroidery on the seat all scream ’70s. For some reason, the aftermarket shifter is installed upside-down; if you zoom way in on the photo, you can see that it’s in Park. Not sure why you would do that.
What’s funny is that, from the cab back, the body style almost kinda-sorta works. The hood and too-tall grille being at the wrong angle look weird, though. And I sincerely hope that rusty cylinder behind the back window isn’t the fuel tank like I fear it is.
I did warn you that we were going to be looking at some weird stuff this week. And once again, I don’t expect you to want to buy either of these. My question for the day is: which one would your character in a George Miller movie drive?
As long as George is writing the checks, I’ll take the overpriced tire-shredder.
Jesus bring in the clowns… I’ve never wanted two vehicles less in my entire life.
But, given that the Stud is virtually guaranteed to belch enormous clouds of black smoke out of those two ridiculous stacks in the absolute most fuck-the-environment-I-love-causing-cancer-coal-rolling-ducebaggerie at every press of the loud petal (I’m willing to put money on the fact that the builder certainly designed it with this intention and probably tuned the Detroit with this in mind), I’m going to have to go with the finned-catastrophe and hope I can make it into something less hideous.
And you can see the mildly lifted and stanced out daily driver Ram (?) pickup next to it. The owner is a type.
Today’s offerings make my friend’s ill-fated purchase of a Mercedes Marlene kit car sight unseen from a bankruptcy auction seem downright sensible.
Um, these both look like total disasters. But if I have to pick one (which I do, because that’s how this works), I’ll take the Stude’ with the monster engine in it.
I’ll take the Whita-baker with the cow(deer?) catcher front end. That will come in handy around the back roads here.
In a Mad Max world: you need to ask how you’re filling the fuel tank and with what.
The diesel could run on just about anything, but you’d consume it all before you came upon the next McD’s grease trap.
The second option, running on gasoline/petrol, would go stale and has near-zero ground clearance.
The real answer here is to find a diesel KLR650.
So, no. Walk it.
That Whuickbaker mashup leaves me with so, so many questions that I have to pick it just to learn more.
“Just walk away. I will give you safe passage in the wasteland. Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror. I await your answer. You have one full day to decide.”
Naturally, I chose the Studebaker with two extra digits in its price.
Drugs are bad, mmmmkay, so don’t use drugs.
I respect the “I’ll walk”ers today, but I gotta say – that Studebaker looks like nothing but pain in the most amazing ways.
The widebody Stude is much closer to a wastelander’s machine, but I have to go with the Whit-e-baker. It’s also nearly 1/10 the price, so you still have a ton of guzzoline and aquacola to buy off the rock riders.
Mark, I don’t know which of us hurt you; but I’m sorry. Gonna go with the cheapest option.
The studebaker need new seats, something with a back and headrests.
Honestly, the seats are the most fascinating thing about this build: someone went to the trouble of mounting them back-side-down. I assume they had to add rails…. what an enormous amount of effort, and they look uncomfortable as hell that way.
Maybe the truck should be named (and driven) Legs Up The Wall.
I mean… neither would be fine.
Looking at the position of the plug wires and exhaust manifold, I think, but am not sure, it’s a Studebaker V-8,
I’d rather crawl.
This is the correct answer
I’ll take the cheaper one. It has tailfins! Who can say “no” to tailfins?
True. But it’s also very hard to say “no” to a V-12 “screamin’ Jimmy”…
Today would have been a great day for the NFW button. Because that would be the button I’d hit..
I’d hit it twice.
Oh hell no. I’m speedwalking away from both of these.
I’ll take the much cheaper unfinished thing and try to finish it. I like Ken Block-style wide body kits, but 8 feet wide is too wide for anyone.
Honestly, the Stude looks better done. Or at least the product of a more coherent plan. That typically translates throughout the rest of the design to the quality of the work.
I’d go with the Stude
I voted Stude. Too many unknowns with the other.
The Studebaker is much cooler and fits right into a MaD Max movie but they price is just utterly ridiculous for a ratty vehicle like this. The other abomination might be worth more s in parts so I voted that.
I’ll walk
Seconded.
CP.