(first posted 4/1/2018) It is universally recognized that the only reason Studebaker went out of business was because the company was ahead of its time. Not only did it sell small cars before small cars were fashionable, it holds a special place among automotive stylists. It is well known that Raymond Loewy and other talented designers spent time there turning out classic designs one after another. Less well known is that Studebaker’s cache of postwar designs has been the well to which automotive stylists have gone again and again as they have searched for fresh ideas. So deep is that well that Studebaker has provided the basis for virtually every significant design theme we have seen over the last fifty years. Let’s look at some examples. Like this first shot. You may have thought that the Batmobile featured in the Michael Keaton film was originally outlandish. Nope. Just like with the Muppets, the film’s artists began with a bullet-nose Studebaker.
We all know that the Cadillac Escalade struck gold when it took the ordinary Chevy Tahoe upmarket. But did you ever notice how, when GM stylists were looking for inspiration for a suitably impressive front end of the vehicle, that they copied that of the 1961 Lark? The exposed seams all around the front panel were cutting edge design that was not appreciated in 1961 but which was perfectly accepted on a top-shelf luxury vehicle forty years later. Also note the way the slight arc in the front fender crease of the Cadillac – a perfect hat-tip to the Studebaker, which also provided inspiration for the basic shape of the modern SUV.
Everyone knows and loves the famous Nissan Hardbody pickup. Its blocky shape and the bold sectioned grille as a focal point of the blunt front end made Nissan’s small truck an instant classic. It is, of course, easy to see where Nissan went for inspiration. The Studebaker Transtar truck line of the late 1950s was so far advanced that it was not appreciated for the modern design that it was. We can now see how wrong the critics were at the time when they accused Studebaker of merely slapping a cheap fiberglass fascia onto an old design in an effort to update its design on the cheap. No, it can finally be stated that Studebaker’s stylists were predicting mainstream pickup styling thirty years before others actually got there. The noticeable fender bulges on the Hardbody echo the original and are a brilliant take on the classic look Studebaker created in 1957.
When Hyundai began its quest to move from cheap also-ran to a legitimate choice for upscale buyers, the firm’s stylists knew where they needed to look for a muse. The classic stern of the 1963 Cruiser was the only place to go. Its timeless use of large round taillights and the full-width band of thick bright trim that incorporates back-up lights updated beautifully to the new millennium. The prominent side crease and large rear window practically copy Brooks Stevens’ brilliant 1963 update of the Lark, as does the use of block letters for the nameplate. The bold upper edge of the deck lid completes the package. Although the buyers of 1963 were not ready for this look, just look where the Sonata has gone after this successful – dare we say – “Jet Thrust” launch.
Nissan has been going from success to success in recent years. The current Maxima has been seen as a trendsetter in the industry. Its bold front end has brought on a gaggle of imitators recently, including Honda and Toyota. But those of us in the know immediately saw the classic lines of the 1958 Studebaker in this new Maxima. The deep dip of the lower lip of the bumper is only the beginning. The thick bands of chrome higher up on the grille and a variation on the “V” motif in the Nissan’s grille design complete the package. Studebaker’s quad headlight treatment was criticized in 1958. What the public took for cheaply added fender pods were actually Studebaker’s way of bringing the headlight edges close to the wheel opening in the only way that the technology of 1958 would allow. See how modern lighting design makes it possible for Nissan to finally achieve the look Studebaker’s design staff searched for sixty years ago. Note also the little kick-up at the back of the greenhouse and Nissan’s svelte update of the Studebaker’s hardtop C pillar and tailfin. It is hard to believe that over a half century separates the two designs.
The 1986 Ford Taurus is recognized as a watershed design, perhaps the boldest new design since Studebaker’s demise. The Taurus’ stylists should get a lot less credit than they do because it is clear for all to see that they practically copied Raymond Loewy’s Avanti line for line. The grille-less facia flanked by two bold rectangular headlights with outboard vertical parking lights was almost a direct copy. The Taurus also pays homage to the Avanti’s slim chrome bumper with the subtle chrome trim across the front. This lonely bit of original design was doubtless due to bumper regulations that were not in existence when the original design hit showrooms. The only place the Taurus designers muffed things was in their eagerness to slather plastic cladding all over the sides of their new Ford. But perhaps this was necessary to avoid litigation as the Avanti II was still in limited production.
Subaru has been on a roll in recent years. When it was time for a new design language to cement its newfound status as one of America’s favorite cars, Subaru knew that there was but a single source for inspiration. America of 1955 did not appreciate the subtle front end treatment which Studebaker affixed to its line of cars in an effort to tone down some of Raymond Loewy’s earlier excess. Modern Subaru buyers, however, understand the look completely and have snapped the cars up with great enthusiasm. Note Subaru’s update on the prominent lights mounted low in the bumper of the Studebaker. A premier road car of 1955 needed good driving lights and one today needs them no less. It is nice to see another Indiana-built vehicle with this attractive look. There are rumors of limited edition Commander and President trim levels for the Subarus coming in 2019. That Subaru follows Studebaker’s legacy is literally written on the front of the latest models.
The 1999 Impala was a sleek and attractive car. It is little wonder that Studebaker was the source of its good looks. The most obvious part of the copy is the heavy crease above the rear wheel that resolves at the rear of the vehicle. America was not ready for Brooks Stevens’ vision in 1962, but that look fits today to a T. But we should also note the thick pillars and high beltline of the Impala. Stylish as those features may be in 2018, Studebaker was offering that look to a public that simply did not understand the concept. I suspect that the Mona Lisa took a few generations to gain some traction with art lovers as well. The large wheels and short overhangs of the Studebaker were carried over to the modern Impala almost perfectly intact. It is true, there really is nothing new under the sun. But even today Chevrolet’s stylists were not bold enough to adopt the Studebaker’s flashy dip in the side molding. I suspect that we will see this design feature brought into the next generation Impala.
If the 1962 Lark served as the beginning of the inspiration for the Impala, the 1964 model finished off the rear of the newest version of the car. The unmistakably fleet shape of the 1964 Cruiser is evident in the shape of the Impala’s tail section. The horizontally oriented taillights tied together with bright trim which contained a nameplate in block letters could have come from no other source. And again, that unique ridge over the rear wheel opening is there as well. Although Studebaker could have lowered the rear of its sedan as Chevrolet did with the Impala, Studebaker’s designers knew that America was not ready for such a bold concept. Note that without the convenient gas cap in the center section Chevrolet’s stylists needed to move the license plate up from the bumper to cover the bare spot. Such are the compromises that must be made when design perfection runs into today’s tight styling budgets.
Even the most avant garde styles have proven to be virtual carbon copies of Studebakers. Take the Nissan Juke. Although it has proved to be controversial, it is positively conservative next to the 1959 Studebaker Lark from which it clearly stole its look. The stubby shape with extremely short overhangs and the little kickup over the rear wheel are definite updates of the older design. But look at the roof pillars – the three backswept pillars and the wraparound rear glass – make it clear that Nissan might as well be spelling its name with the Studebaker-sourced lazy S. It would not be surprising to learn that the Nissan even uses some of the Lark’s inner stampings in the Juke’s body.
Mercedes Benz is rightly seen today as the world’s premier motorcar. Most people do not realize that Mercedes learned most of what it knows about automobile building from the years when it shared U.S. showrooms with Studebaker. It is indisputable that Mercedes was never better than in the years immediately after its Studebaker affiliation–an affiliation that went so much better than that later one with Chrysler. Just think how much more successful StudebakerDaimler would have been. It is clear that Mercedes has not forgotten its roots in the new E Class Cabriolet. The inspiration of the prominent three-pointed ornament in the middle of the nose could hardly be more clear. The center bullet section of the 1951 original was no doubt eliminated to avoid potential legal issues with Cooper Industries, the corporate successor to Studebaker. Mercedes did, however insist on carrying over the two bright lines which flow out from the center ornament. Of course they do not spell out “Studebaker” and “Champion” on the chrome bars, but then sometimes even Mercedes buyers have to settle for less.
Really, it is hard to imagine a single world automotive styling trend that did not show up first on a Studebaker. The trapezoidal grille that became almost universal in the 1990s – yep, you guessed it. From Toyota to Mercury and almost everything in between, the signature look of the 1964 Studebaker Hawk is on display. And never more clearly than on the final version of the Ford Crown Victoria, which even aped Studebaker for the general look of its wheels. It is unfortunate that none of the modern-day designers has yet done justice to the graceful design of the Hawk, but there is time. As long as new cars are styled and manufactured you can be sure that in some way Studebaker will be the inspiration for the design. It is just a shame that Studebaker was so far ahead of its time that it could not be around to bring us these new designs today. Because we all know that everything is better when it comes from Indiana.
Well, this finally puts to rest the old trope that all new cars look the same. Really, they just look like old Studebakers.
And also provides a point to those who find all new cars ugly. They look like old Studebakers.
Touché.
I must say, the original Lark’s look with a nice big wheel at every corner really is far more modern than most other ’59’s elephant-on-roller-skates look.
Part of that is because apart from the sensational “Wide-Track” Pontiacs all the ’59s used an almost-standardized track width that went back to the Conestoga wagon, which was built by…Studebaker!
Am I the only one who sees styling similarities between the ’75 Chevy Camaro and the ’53 Studebaker Champion/Commander Regal 2 door hardtops?
Well Mark, we did not have room here to show the Studebaker antecedent to every car ever made.
Some would argue that I missed this most brilliant parallel. I will strenuously deny it with the rejoinder that your example is so obvious that I saw no reason to even mention it.
Make that Exner:
For instance, while Loewy gained fame for Studebaker’s breakthrough postwar designs, many were actually Exner’s work, according to Mr. Grist’s book. Most notable among them was the Champion Starlight Coupe, a model that is widely attributed to Loewy. Among the illustrations in the book are patent drawings for the car that carry the words, “Inventor, Virgil M. Exner.”…. Exner struggled to get the attention of his boss, who had to sign off on every facet of the designs. Exner was encouraged by Roy Cole, Studebaker’s engineering vice president, to work on his own at home on backup designs in case the company’s touchy relationship with Loewy blew up.
According to Mr. Grist’s book, Loewy finally went to South Bend in mid-1944 to show designs for what would become Studebaker’s first postwar models. The company also asked Exner to display his backup models. When the company chose Exner’s designs instead of the boss’s, Loewy reacted by firing Exner.
Studebaker hired Exner on the spot, and made him chief of styling — and told Loewy he would have to work with Exner. Exner hired a star-studded staff, including Bob Bourke, who had worked for Sears in Chicago, and Gordon Buehrig, the great stylist for Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg.
“Loewy couldn’t draw automobiles — not at all,” said Bourke, who would succeed Exner at Studebaker design, in a 1985 interview. “He was just ridiculous as far as cars were concerned — and he knew it.”
The models Exner and his staff designed became Studebaker’s 1947 and 1948 models — the so-called New Look cars. They were the first all-new models from any automaker after the war, and they sold well.
Loewy was open about taking credit for the designs of his staff; it is still a common industry practice for the work of an automaker’s design studio to be attributed to its head…
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/automobiles/collectibles/21EXNER.html
Although this piece was written as a way to have some fun for April Fool’s day, I too have read Grist’s book and am coming to the conclusion that Exner should get more credit in the Studebaker world than he does. Loewy had the big name and it was in both his and Studebaker’s interest to promote it. Exner was a nobody at the time and would not become well known until much later.
JP: Sending you a bulk case of Mydol for times (like the above) when you feel the need to respond in such way.
I was kidding, of course. Actually I gave myself a big ol’ slap on the forhead when you mentioned this one – I couldn’t believe I missed it!
OK then, send back the Mydol package.
I have to tackle my income tax forms this week.
🙂
Howabout I send you half – I have to work on my taxes this week too. 🙂
Great story and something to think about. I’m SURE it’s just a coincidence it came out on April 1st.
+1
…and I fell for it.
Brilliant! Everything old is new again!
Peter Allen drove a Studebaker.
http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=23977
Pure coincidence. Our scheduling is such that the system plucks an upcoming article is there is a hole in the schedule. Scheduling for Sunday has historically been a challenge. JP’s article was out there and voila! Here it is.
Great work JP, and excellent comparisons.
Very interesting story. So for today I try to see the Stud in every car on the road 😉
Another omission is how much today’s U.S. Postal Service’s LLV’S look like Studebaker Zip Vans. Happy April Fools Day!
Great article and every word is gospel truth. But let’s not forget this delicious little factoid – there was obviously some naughty hanky-panky going on between Studebaker and Oldsmobile as they were preparing their 1938 models. Inquiring minds want to know!
Just remember how Studebaker brought the “breathe of life” first to Pierce Arrow and then later to Packard, more naughty hanky-panky behind the scenes, no doubt.
To be a leader is to be a “Dictator”, a Studebaker Dictator, it seems, driving off into the uncertain future, without resurrection. The April Fool’s joke of life upon us all and Studebaker..
Agree, Exner’s and then Brooks Steven’s influence is evident.
Otherwise, Passover greetings, Easter Greetings to all. Springtime beauty is emerging in measured fashion throughout the Northern Hemisphere to be enjoyed by all. Northern greetings to our Southern Hemisphere CC’ers.
Thanks to J.P and Paul for our April Fool’s jokes.
Your case is airtight, counselor. Great work !
Bravo!
Unfortunately, it just goes to show you that being a design leader is not always a good thing.
Nice April Fool’s Joke!
Just goes to show that excellent, ahead-of-its
-time design does not always translate into business success. Also remember that American Motors used that crease behind the rear wheel well on the 1964-65 Americans. Didn’t help them much either.
Fantastic fact finding, JPC!
HAPPY APRIL FOOL’S DAY. J.P. thanks for the joke, the mirth. LOL
So, the zany, wacky world of South Bend’s finest finally gets due credit for their contributions to the automotive world.
The one that was left out was the ’53 Starliner and, seriously, it’s a curiosity as to why (the bunged-up 1955 version just a mere two years later doesn’t count). Many believe Loewy’s original Starliner to be one of the most beautiful domestic cars ever built, yet no one has seen fit to copy it for a new, modern retro-mobile.
@ XR7 Matt…the difference is that many of the old Studes look good, while many of the ideas used on the new cars (the Nissan Joke, er, Juke) do not…..
What we all have to ask ourselves is…which car in each comparison would we rather own? I know I would take the Studebaker over most of other cars. The Benz convertible is nice and all, but which one would turn heads as you cruise down the main street on a Saturday night? As for the Batmobile, give me the original as featured in the TV series with Adam West and Burt Ward over that one any day of the week!
Kida like old Studes but as you know I have a Loewy design in my carport not a Studebaker but a 5/8 version by Rootes Group.
Bryce, and this is no April Fools Joke, yesterday on Hemmings I saw where somebody in NZ has a ’58 Studebaker with like 120 original miles on it. Rumored to be the lowest mileage Stude in existence.
I have seen pictures of that one. It is remarkably preserved.
I saw that too. It has delicious appeal as an artifact. But $60,000 USD is a lot for a pretty peculiar derivation of the ’53(?) model – those single-headlight pods! And a basic manual sidevalve six at that. I wonder, would the RHD affect desirability in the US? I imagine that it clearly would if it were just a “nice” ’58, but as a freaky low-use car?
As a kid in the mid 1970s, I had a couple copies of Canada’s leading car magazine from the 1960s, Track and Traffic. The issues I had were from Spring 1966, and one of the issues featured a full colour multi-page brochure stapled into the centre spread advertising Studebaker’s full 1966 lineup. It was a very nicely done brochure, and probably Studebaker’s last stand, as they stopped production in Hamilton, Ontario a few months later.
Track and Traffic Car of the Year for 1964… Studebaker. Announced in February… two months before the Mustang’s stunning release. Unless Studebaker paid the editorial staff, their Car of the Year Awards seem as dubious as Motor Trend.
Given they were now made exclusively in Canada, I think their Studebaker bias was showing. 😉
The Mustang was but a copy. 🙂
Haha… “Studebaker… 1964’s Car of the Year!”
hehehehe how have I missed this all these years?
I’m not even sure this one is a joke. The ’53 Studebaker coupes and the ’88 Cutlass Supreme share a sloping hood with twin low grills, wide open wheel arches, and a wrap around rear window with a high trunk.
The Olds would not have been my first thought, but then I’m not from Lansing. Here is another of the Starliner’s children.
Very enjoyable. That Juke/Lark profile is pretty similar…Jim.
I know, right? Every Juke I have seen lately translates to a Lark in my brain.
A 1946 Studebaker prototype has more than a passing resemblance to the 1949 Ford.
I see Peugeot 403, personally.
Truly, this is disappointing. I feel that Curbside Classics is lowering the tone with pieces such as this.
Whilst I do not profess to be an expert on postwar styling influences, I am cognizant of sufficient automotive history to know that there are some quite basic errors in this article which even a simple Google search would have avoided. For example, for the author to state that he “would not be surprised to learn that Nissan uses some Lark stampings for the Jukes inner body” is unworthy of CC; such stampings would never pass modern safety needs at the very least. In fact, the notion would nearly cause outright laughter, if were it not so serious.
Though it pains to say it, if this site does not raise standards to previous levels, I shall be cancelling my subscription.
Now, now. We all know Niedermeyer is clever indeed, but nowhere near as snappy as ‘Ed.’
Also, I’ll pick up your next subscription so you needn’t cancel. 😉
Nice work JP, a fun read, thanks! I’m a Kentucky boy by trade but my folks are Hoosiers (Harrison Co, 31A har har) so Studes are close to my heart for sure.
Loving this story! I’ve always had a soft spot for Studebakers. This might be tongue in cheek but a lot here rings true. Amazing to total up the simple styling solutions they came up with to keep in the game.
+April 1.
Hmmm. Any Studebaker antecedents here?
But of course!
Excellent!
About the only thing that might help the appearance of that Maxima, would be a pair of those ’58 Stude’ fins.
As for Nissan’s ‘Joke’, it makes the Lark look like the finest work of a famous Italian design studio!
Happy Motoring, Mark
Reading this made me feel so much better. I no longer need psychotropic meds to imagine every modern vehicle to be a Studebaker reincarnation – it’s all been laid out for me, in living color.
Yikes!
Great showing how Studebaker was always cutting edge, and years, and decades ahead of its time. The original Lark has not truly been appreciated for their style and design. But, it had unusual for the time lowered headlights below the old standard height of most other cars in the 50’s. The previous year Studebaker-Packard was taken to task for its unusual take on the then new trend of dual headlights, and their tacked on tailfins. But, Dodge did the same thing for 3 years running, 57-59. Overlooked here was the most unusual and unique of all station wagons in automotive history, the Wagonaire. GM tried to copy the idea decades later with the failed Envoy.
that Batmobile looks obscene!
Batman’ car might be cool, but this is the epitome of coolness!
Oops! Forgot the picture.
But did Studebaker anticipate the Pontiac Aztek?
The Isuzu Impulse?
The Hummer H2?
Fail!
Four years on, you elicited the same smile here!
Next year: 13 liter 18 wheeler trucks and Studeebakers
Having never driven, ridden in or even seen a Studebaker in person, I can’t say too much.
They definitely didn’t look bad from the pictures.
Me being me, was there a Studebaker Brougham?!!!
How could you write this long article about how incredibly far ahead of their time Studebaker was, and not even once mention that Studebaker built and sold their first EVs way back in 1902 and sold thousands more over the ensuing decade? 106 years before Tesla!
Interesting that there were so many Nissans in the mix. I had a friend who worked at Nissan Design Center who also had Studebakers. Coincidence? You be the judge.
While we’re at it, we need to acknowledge Elon’s design debt for the hugely popular and influential Model Y!
ta da!
Do not remember the year but it was the 1950s. I remember Air Force Dad & we lived in California. We had two 1955 Oldsmobile’s. Not sure why but Dad also had a 1950-ish bullet nose Studebaker. I rode in that car once. Was told Dad fell out of the car when the door opened. I know Dad was hurt, something a child would remember. Could have many lies I was told as a child. My next memory was Dad at Walter Reed on the East Coast. All I remember, being with Mom, brother, and security high as Eisenhower was also at Walter Reed that day.
So every time I see a bullet nose Studebaker, I think of Dad falling out of it.