1962 would see quite a bit of change, not all of it readily apparent. This would be the first sedan designed with Brooks Stevens’ input. Unfortunately, this was a styling job that would have to be done in two installments. First, she short wheelbase version would disappear, so that all Larks would now be on the longer 113 inch wheelbase. But now, the long wheelbase body got an updated roofline similar to the basic ’61 Lark. Most of the design budget showed up in the revised front and rear styling, including fenders and quarter panels. It would appear that the new Lark also made use of slightly revised versions of the long rear doors from the ’61 Cruiser. But for all of the new changes, it was clear from that out-of-style windshield, those thick upper door frames and the old-fashioned exposed B pillar that it was the same old Studebaker.
It was with the 1963 model that Brooks Stevens would finally be able to afford to finish his vision for the car. This year marked the first really visible change to the car’s greenhouse since 1955. A new modern windshield and thin door uppers were added to what was otherwise last year’s Lark. Although it is difficult to tell, this car may have used the same roof panel as well. Stevens also jettisoned the “dipped” bright side molding that made the ’62 take on a swaybacked appearance. That dipped molding had been made necessary by the perennial character ridge in the body side that was finally eliminated on the ’63 sedans. In an apparent cost savings, that ridge remained pressed into the 2 door models all the way through 1966. Another change which not even I had ever noticed until a later edit is that the lower doors were revised to finally conceal the old exposed B pillar, which had always stuck out like a sore thumb.
There were also enough changes made to the cowl for modern parallel action windshield wipers to replace the old 1950s-style opposing wipers. It was a major step and a major expense for Studebaker, but the new lightened upper body was not completely up to the task of changing the look of the heavy lower body. Once again, the carried-over parts of the design worked to overshadow and disguise the new parts, and to confirm that this was anything but a new car.
Thanks to Eric Clem for this beautiful 1964.
It would not be until the 1964 line that Brooks Stevens would be given the budget to do a more thoroughly revised outer body. This was a very clever job which involved a revised roof and rear door uppers, along with a new front clip that finally eliminated the Lark’s sawed-off appearance. The car also got new rear styling, all of which served to disguise the carried-over doors and rear quarter panels. For the first time since 1953, it could be argued that the new Studebaker was indeed a new model. We will ignore the 1963 dash panel that carried over, as well as the fact that the body still perched on top of the frame rather than nestled down into it as on every other body-on-frame car not named Checker. Also, not until writing this would I come to realize that the outer rear fender appeared to be the very same piece used in 1962 and 63. Attractive as they were, the new 1964 model would unfortunately prove to be too little, too late. When early sales figures did not show a significant jump from 1963, the decision was made that enough was enough, and production in South Bend would cease within just a few months after the 1964 model’s debut. This car would, of course, soldier on for two final model years as a product of Studebaker Canada, but there would be no body changes from the final American version.
There is probably no company that did more with less over a longer time than Studebaker. And I would be surprised that if, by 1964, there was a single significant piece of the original 1953 body that was still in the car beyond the floor or the firewall. Actually, even the floorpans were slightly revised in 1961. But just as the old axe that had received two new heads and three new handles was still Grandpa’s axe, the 1964 Studebaker will be for all time considered to be a very cleverly disguised 1953 model. An accurate assessment? Certainly a point for debate.
What is beyond debate is that through a decade of relatively minor, incremental changes, Studebaker finished up with a design that was certainly no less appealing then they one with which they began in the early 1950s. And that, dear readers, is not something seen very often.
Pages: 1 2
I find it interesting that the contour of a 1953 front fender will line up with the contour of a 1966 front door. With every change Studebaker made in that time, they never changed both the front door skin and the front fender at the same time. So that contour couldn’t change over those 14 years! Look closely and you’ll see.
GREAT enjoyable website – thanks!!!!
So – I went to Country Classics in Staunton Illinois and met up with you guys and among the hundreds of cars available, there appeared a 1964 Studebaker, remember?
What surprised and disappointed me was how the changed fenders, doors, roof, windows, and trim didn’t come together, in person – as a whole. In person, the car looked like it was assembled with different parts, which it had. The profile photos and ads didn’t capture the lack of unity revealing itself via the convex of the sides, front and back of the car. The car looked misassembled in person.
The Studebaker’s competition was created as one piece, so that even an inexpensive Falcon or Valiant appeared higher quality than this.
I am sad to report that I too have noticed this. I loved the 64 Stude as a kid – especially the Daytona hardtop owned by my then-best friend’s grandmother. Today – I admire what they tried to do, and I still like the car enough to own one if the opportunity arose. But there are elements of the design that jump out once you have noticed them – like the way the Daytona’s side trim bends at the cowl, moving downhill in each direction from that point. Once seen it cannot be un-seen.
Even with the clever end-cap, the carryover ’62 rear quarter panels really don’t work with the rest of the design. They were so close. It’s like if Chrysler had carried over the roof line and rear quarter panels of the ’75 B-body coupes to the sedans and wagons.
> Could the 1958 Studebaker have been the last mainstream passenger sedan with perfectly rectangular lower rear doors?
I’d go with 1965 Lincoln Continental
> The relative success of the 1959 Lark must have freed up some major restyling funds because the first change to the roof of the car would appear on the 1961 model.
That’s the second change; the first was in 1958 when the roof became much flatter than the 53-57 design. Did they lower the seats to compensate, or did headroom take a big hit? (The wagon didn’t get the flat roof until 1959).
Thanks for all the effort that went into this article, which I missed when previously published. I now can better understand better just how Studebaker managed to keep going (just barely) for the last 10-15 years of its existence.
My father was a confirmed Studebaker man for many years, owning a 1953 Starliner, a 1956 Champion sedan and finally a 1963 Lark two-door sedan bought used in the late 1960s as a short-distance commuter car. I only knew the last of these and was acutely embarrassed by its dated, Spartan appearance that clashed with the longer, lower, wider ethos then popularized by GM and Ford. I always thought the 1962 and 1963 Lark were virtually identical, but after viewing the pictures above, I was compelled to go back through family photo albums to confirm the vintage of our Lark. Sure enough, ours had the revised greenhouse, marking it as a 1963 model.
“> Could the 1958 Studebaker have been the last mainstream passenger sedan with perfectly rectangular lower rear doors?
I’d go with 1965 Lincoln Continental”
When I saw that sentence in the article I immediately thought of the Citroen CX. Made until 1989 (Station Wagon estate until 1991).
Regarding the whole to-do about the exposed B pillars, the 1971-73 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham and Fleetwood Seventy-Five also had exposed B-pillars. For the 1974 model year, the front door skins were extended to hide the lower B-pillars.
Didn’t the ’66 Studebaker have one last-gasp innovative feature, flow-through ventilation with the exit vents integrated with the tail lights? (Not common on 1960s U.S. cars.)
Missed this the first time around, but what a wonderful, comprehensive article JPC!
Does the 1958 Studebaker wrap-around compound rear window has the same shape as the 1957-59 Chrysler cars since Virgil Exner designed the 1957-59 Forward Look, does it seems familiar even the taillights has Dodge influence?
Studebaker chassis also changed very little in significant ways…making it easy to source and swap parts. It’s one of the easiest marques to restore and drive…I know, I’ve been doing it since 1963.