Syke’s you really don’t know what your talking about, Studebaker’s were never pathetic.
The first Lark came out in ’59. Body changes in 62, 63 and 64. In 1963 you could get 5 different engines. 170ci, 259ci, 289ci, 289 R1, 289 R2 Paxton blown Supercharged and 304 R3 Supercharged. Pathetic I don’t think so.
Reminds me of a Lark that a friend’s wife drove everyday back in the 70s & 80s. He was a buyer & seller of Studebaker parts, and she was a notoriously poor driver. Her Lark Daytona looked the same, except he had drilled & mounted 8 bumper uprights, equally spaced across each bumper!
In the early 1990’s the house up the street was for sale and the owners came and asked me to tow one of these away, it was white and had a broken driver’s side door latch, I didn’t take it, maybe I should have .
Sweet! I’m not getting the negative takes on this one… I mean, who knows what lies beneath, what with only the one photo presented. Can’t tell from the photo whether it’s a V8 car or the less fortunate 170 OHV. Might get lucky and find a straight old car underneath? Admittedly, I’m a little scared with that layer of decomposing organic material around the trunk lid seams.
Of note: It has a 1963 tail light lens on the right, ’62 on the left, and is missing the notoriously hard to find left reverse light lens (unless someone finally reproduced them).
My first thought when I saw this car was “that’s not a ’63, it’s a ’62” but didn’t know what I was picking up on. I never noticed the taillights are slightly different. The easiest way to tell them apart (aside from the new grille texture) of course is wraparound windshield and rear window, and I thought at first the angles of the A and C pillars suggested the ’62. But looking at some pics of the 62 can tell the pillar angles are different and the rear window isn’t quiet the right shape for a 62, so this is def. a ’63.
I can’t believe they didn’t figure out some way to make the two backup light lenses interchange by putting one on upside down. Maybe with the lenses themselves oriented the same way since I know these are tightly regulated for light output and such.
Ran when parked.
Ran when new.
Ran the last time I drove it.
Ran “into the ground” by the current owner.
Since the chassis isn’t sitting on the ground due to ancient flat tires I don’t think it is at that stage yet.
I like the homemade “garage”. Reminds me of the one in this picture, from the book CARS OF CUBA (c. 1995).
[Pedro Perez Vega’s ’57 Ford Custom 300, Carretera Vinales]
Notice the sophisticated cantilever construction of the Stud’s shed?
…no corner-posts at the rear of roof.
Jim, I suspect the 2 posts rotted off!
I’ll go to my grave appreciating what Studebaker was able to do, constantly re-tweaking a pathetic 56-57 automobile.
A ’53 actually, the ’56 was already the fourth year for this body
1963 Lark
Syke’s you really don’t know what your talking about, Studebaker’s were never pathetic.
The first Lark came out in ’59. Body changes in 62, 63 and 64. In 1963 you could get 5 different engines. 170ci, 259ci, 289ci, 289 R1, 289 R2 Paxton blown Supercharged and 304 R3 Supercharged. Pathetic I don’t think so.
Don’t you mean Studebar? At least that’s the way I read it with the K and E missing from the decklid. And did anyone else notice the Rambler gas cap?
Yes on that gas cap!
Wasn’t sure because the image was a little hard to make out on my phone.
Tail-light twins,separated at birth,
and only separated by 2 consonants:
’63 Lark
’63 Dart
Reminds me of a Lark that a friend’s wife drove everyday back in the 70s & 80s. He was a buyer & seller of Studebaker parts, and she was a notoriously poor driver. Her Lark Daytona looked the same, except he had drilled & mounted 8 bumper uprights, equally spaced across each bumper!
I’ve driven worse home.
Looks decent, I wonder how much rust .
In the early 1990’s the house up the street was for sale and the owners came and asked me to tow one of these away, it was white and had a broken driver’s side door latch, I didn’t take it, maybe I should have .
-Nate
Sweet! I’m not getting the negative takes on this one… I mean, who knows what lies beneath, what with only the one photo presented. Can’t tell from the photo whether it’s a V8 car or the less fortunate 170 OHV. Might get lucky and find a straight old car underneath? Admittedly, I’m a little scared with that layer of decomposing organic material around the trunk lid seams.
Of note: It has a 1963 tail light lens on the right, ’62 on the left, and is missing the notoriously hard to find left reverse light lens (unless someone finally reproduced them).
My first thought when I saw this car was “that’s not a ’63, it’s a ’62” but didn’t know what I was picking up on. I never noticed the taillights are slightly different. The easiest way to tell them apart (aside from the new grille texture) of course is wraparound windshield and rear window, and I thought at first the angles of the A and C pillars suggested the ’62. But looking at some pics of the 62 can tell the pillar angles are different and the rear window isn’t quiet the right shape for a 62, so this is def. a ’63.
I can’t believe they didn’t figure out some way to make the two backup light lenses interchange by putting one on upside down. Maybe with the lenses themselves oriented the same way since I know these are tightly regulated for light output and such.
Great photo! Both haunting and melancholy…
Wonderful shot. Love the home built car port. It looks right at home there.
Somewhere in Arizona per the copper historic plate and the mesquite trees.