(first posted 10/16/2018) Life is full of unexpected twists and turns. I’ve had my fun with the Champ, suggesting one of the stepside versions be turned into a horse-drawn wagon, and calling another one out for “The Most Ill-Fitting Bed Ever”. But that second one was from the Cohort, and it had the short 6.5′ bed. Then this summer I found myself walking around a neighborhood in Portland one evening, and I stumbled into this Champ with the 8′ bed. And a light went on! This is a Studebaker I could really use, and even want. I have a thing about big, wide 8′ beds but short, compact front ends, even if the combination ends up looking a bit unbalanced. But so am I.
So is this the most compact 8′ bed wideside bed pickup ever?
Some years back I wrote that the only pickup I could see replacing my ’66 F100 if something were to befall it was a Toyota T100. And with the four cylinder, at that. I now need to amend that: I’d be thrilled to replace my truck with this Champ if the need or opportunity arose. It’s perfect for me.
As an aside, can anyone find the overall length of the Champ with 8′ bed? I can’t. I’d love to know how it compares to the T100. I’m guessing they’re pretty close, but I suspect the Toyota is wee bit shorter. But these two have to be the two most compact conventional cab trucks to pack a full wide-body 8′ bed.
Yeah, the borrowed Dodge bed is ill-fitting, sticking out a couple of inches on either side. That works for me, as some of my clothes are just as ill-fitting. Who gives a damn? Is anyone even going to notice? They’ll be too focused on the odd cab up there. How many would even recognize what it is these days?
I guess they would from the back. But then how many folks under the age of about 50 know what a Studebaker is? Or was? Studebaker? Now if I were to paint “Toyota” in big white letters on the tailgate, folks would just nod and smile, instead of…look puzzled.
I’m going to assume I fit pretty well in this Lark-derived cab. The Lark was just a cut-down regular Studebaker, so it’s got to have adequate leg room. And the width is okay too, as I rarely have a passenger except for the dog. But then it’s been a mighty long time since I was in a Lark.
I see this one has the four speed unit, which invariably has a super-low first. In other words, a three-speed and a stump puller. I’ll take a regular three-speed and overdrive, thank you, which offers five nicely-spaced gears including an overdrive for the highway.
I’m a fan of big sixes, but after 1960 the Champ had the little 169.6 CID Studebaker ohv six, which never quite escaped its rep for cracking heads, never mind the modest torque. That malady happened because it was an ohv conversion of the old Champion flathead six, which of course had a small bore and long stroke. That meant that the two valves in the new head were too close to each other, hence the cracking.
I’d rather have the venerable 245 CID flathead six in my Champ, but that was only available in its first year (1960), before the wide beds came along in 1962. Can’t be that hard to swap one in though. But I might be able to develop a love affair with the Stude V8, which was available in either the 259 or 289 versions. Put some dual exhausts on it and enjoy its burble. And decent power, with the 289.
This is the business end, and it’s certainly up to the jobs I would use it for: hauling dirt, compost, gravel and junk to the dump. I like that beefy bumper too, which my Ford lacks. And note the sliding glass rear window; that was a first by Studebaker, and would soon become very popular on American pickups. That might come in handy, although I’m not sure just how or when without a topper.
I’ve long pondered what would be the right Studebaker for me: ’59 Lark coupe, ’53 Starliner coupe, Avanti, ’64 Daytona. I’ve loved them all. But ponder no more; this is the one for me. At least for the moment.
I guess you DID leave a note under the wiper, right? You cannot say this is the car I want and then take no action. It is not like these come up all the time so when you get a chance, gripe it.
I did the same with a Triumph Stag that was for sale at an absurd low price. I did not need it but it was on my list of cars to have “one day”. So I got it, it is now waiting its turn in the shed to be worked on which might take a few years.
This widebed first appeared on the ’58 Transtar with the older cab. It actually looks better with the Lark cab because the bed has a side crease that matches the Lark but doesn’t match the rounded Transtar.
Wonder if Studie was thinking ahead? Seems unlikely… Serendipity is a better explanation.
No it didn’t. Unless you can show me evidence otherwise.
That single-wall bed is deeply old fashioned and makes this unsuitable for gravel. Plenty of things that people wouldn’t worry about today could dent or puncture the bed body from within. This is a fun old classic, but doing actual work with it would quickly turn into a money spending contest finding parts. Looking for a cheap 8′ bed and ready to do work? Look for an S-10.
But did the S-10 have an eight-foot box, or was it just seven, like most compact pickups?
7-foot. I owned two of them, an ’82 and an ’85.
I had a long bed (7foot)/reg cab Ranger for the spring and summer, and as a relative newcomer to the world of trucks, I appreciated the added length versus my standard length bed of the ’97 ranger I had the year prior. Both took 1200lb or so in the bed just fine and had enough power to get up to highway speed with that load.
I’d love a 7′ bed Ranger. Sadly, it seems every single person who bought one went for an extended cab/short bed/4×4/V6/Automatic. No thanks.
Al my ’94 was the regular 2.3L Lima with a stick, in XLT trim (power steering, A/C, sliding rear window and center arm-rest, alloys), it was everything I needed and nothing I didn’t. Bought it with 109k miles up in farm country near Kokomo for $2000. I learned with my ’97 to really inspect the frame and underbody closely for rot, and this ’94 was rock solid. Cleaned it up a bit and sold it for $2200 after using it for hauling and commuting purposes all spring and summer.
Nice ride. Mine was a ’97, the last year of the small cab, before Ford hastily extended it for 1998 (I call it the carbuncle cab).
Base as could be, the only options were power steering and a/c. I added cupholders and a tach from an xlt.
Not bad for a $1000 runaround beater, but the clutch hydraulics went as they do on all stick shift rangers and I unloaded it for $300.
Yeah the internal slave cylinder requiring a transmission drop is a show-stopper for many, and I suppose an opportunity for a mechanically inclined person with a trailer to scoop up a great deal. For me the deal-breaker with the Rangers is winter commuting: I don’t like to subject my other vehicle to salt and the Ranger with its unloaded rear end and RWD (and no airbags) was just not something I wanted to drive through the winter. So in the Ranger’s stead I picked up an old A4 Quattro that I just ordered some downsized snow tires for. Going down to 15″ Passat steelies to go down in width and gain some sidewall for durability.
Parts for Studebakers are actually quite plentiful and there is an active community of folks who continue to keep the torch lit.
You have no idea.A couple sheets of cheap plywood cut to fit solve the single wall problem.And Studebaker parts ar easier to find on the rare occasion these need parts.The box insider is 8 foot 3 inches. Carried a ton of sand home in mine hardly noticed it was there.A good looking truck that works.
…ohv conversion of the old Champion flathead six, which of course had a small bore and long stroke.
Cut away model of the OHV 170 at the Studebaker museum. Having lived with a 170 flattie and a 259, when they were new, I would take the 259, both for the sounds it made and the way it motivated the 56 Commander.
What a device! Somehow the long bed looks better, despite being just as ill fitting.
I assume your pragmatism won out in the end. One of the things you enjoy about your Ford is the good parts supply 50 years on, I doubt it would be as good with a Stude.
Besides, aren’t Larks infamous for poor leg room because of the flat floor on frame construction? Tall guys like us might not fit in there as well as we hope.
my version…its irreplaceable. 6 cyl, 5spd, regular cab, 8′ bed. If only it had 4wheel drive, i wouldn’t need my other Toyota.
And if I’m not mistaken, a full 48 inches between the wheel wells.
My Ranger’s two-tier loading feature is a nice compromise that allows short runs with a small quantity of 4’x8’ sheet goods (tailgate down, of course), but nothing – and I mean NOTHING – beats the ability to lay down a tall stack of building materials and close the tailgate!
Jefray’s appears to be an early Tundra … slightly bigger than the T100, but still available with regular cab and 8’ bed, plus V6. My T100 was also more than 48” between wheelwells. Very handy indeed. But I didn’t have the 8’ bed.
The T100 regular cab, long bed was the last, true work truck. The only bad things were lack of an extended/crew cab and they were more pricey than the domestics which could be had with an unneeded, larger V8 engine. So, the T100 sold poorly. Now, the Tundra is this huge, honking monstrosity. A real shame since the original T100 was tough as nails and sized just right.
Interestingly, Toyota’s foray into the US truck market was shepherded by none other than Bob Curry, who had previously worked for Chrysler marketing and the guy credited with starting the whole rebate thing when he had Joe Garigiola tell people to buy a Dodge Dart and get a check in a 1975 Super Bowl halftime commercial.
The T-100 did have an extracab bodystyle, but not with a full length bed. That craptacular 3.0 V6 was WAY overtaxed as it was in 4×4 mode.Toyota has made some good motors but some of their V6s are NOT in that category. And I wouldn’t call a V8 ‘unneeded’. Maybe for an older guy putting around the garden, smaller engines are adequate. Having driven several Dodge Dakotas with V8s I wouldn’t want one any other way.
That basic Tundra is awesome!
I believe the Champ was Harold Churchill’s last great idea during his tenure at Studebaker. Take a first generation four-door Lark sedan, cut it in half behind the front doors, and modify the front half slightly to fit the 1949-era 2R truck frame. Due to cost, an integrated bed was out of the question, so Studebaker sourced theirs from Dodge. The only new stamping that was required was the back wall of the cab. Due to this low cost, I think the Champ was able to be sold at absolutely bargain prices, as low as $800 back then.
“Due to this low cost, I think the Champ was able to be sold at absolutely bargain prices, as low as $800 back then.”
$800 was too low (or maybe you meant 1800?) I found one article that put the six at around $1900 and the V8 at around $2200.
Maybe. I pulled that $800 figure from the president of my local SDC chapter who drives a 1962 Champ with an Oldsmobile engine swap. Who knows at this point? I would love to see your article if you can find it.
Here is where I found it. http://automuseumonline.com/a-rare-1962-studebaker-champ-pickup-truck.html
I may be one of the few here who actually got to ride in one of these. My Studebaker-loving neighbor found one (a 63 I believe) some time in the early or mid 70s and made it his daily driver in order to slow down the aging process on his Avanti. His was about the same overall condition as this one, only red and with more Indiana body rust. The body on this one is awe-inspiring for this midwestern Stude fan.
His was a six that had had a 3 speed shifter mounted on the floor to replace the column shift. I did not know enough about the Studebaker six at the time to ask about head cracks, but never heard him complain about his.
Did every Champ come with that same pinkish vinyl interior? Bill’s red one did, but I had just assumed that was only one of the choices. Perhaps not. I could happily drive one of these too.
I wonder if at least part of the reason the name was chosen was because the name badging was already 95% tooled.
the name badging was already 95% tooled.
Quite possibly. They had stopped using the Champion name, so why not fill in the part of the die with the “ion” in it and use it? That would be in keeping with the rest of the recycled body.
And they could have named a future model “ion” and beat Saturn to it 🙂
This reminds me of the guy I knew in college with a Lark, whose trunk badge read “Stud”. Not sure if he modified it, or the last three syllables just broke off. I suspect the former … of course impacting its future value. Though no one expected Studebaker to have any future value in those days.
“Though no one expected Studebaker to have any future value in those days.”
It is arguable that they still don’t . . .
Well, at least they have gained intellectual value.
Those name plate castings were pretty fragile. My folk’s 56 renamed itself ‘Comman”
I’ve always had a soft spot for these but like most Studebaker, never paid close attention to them. Thanks for explaining that it used a Lark-based cab, hence the sizing. By the way, on my 5’ bed Tacoma (and even with my 6.5’ T100) the sliding rear window is really handy for longer lumber or pipes, in small quantities of course. The other day I need a couple of 8’ redwood 1×4’s for some trim, and the lumberyard had nothing without big knots, cracks etc. But they had a lot of really nice twelve-footers. I usually buy 8’ lumber and just hang it over the tailgate, but in this case I just popped open the window and ran the wood from dashboard to tailgate. With the Stude’s 8’ bed, you could haul a few sixteen-footers with no rack.
This post has jogged loose a long-ago memory. Dad and I were headed up I-70 in his ’77 Cutlass (which he sold when I was 11). He told me to look to the left, because an interesting old truck was coming: a Studebaker! I looked left, and saw a truck with I think this same front end. It had a “Turbo” or “Turbocharged” badge on its flank, and I’m stretching my memory here, but I think it was in a similar chrome-cursive style as the “Champ” and “Champion” badges we see in this post and thread. I do clearly recall it had quite some patina on it and looked intact and original; it did not present as a restomod (or resto-anything) job. And it was climbing the hill, makin’ tracks without indication of a sweat, while dad’s 350 Cutlass was gasping and wheezing a little about it. Dad and I exchanged some marvelment at the turbocharger callout and watched the truck as it zoomed ahead of us and off into the distance.
So: What did we see, then? About the only hit I come up with in a google search is this, which is clearly not at all the same thing.
I don’t know, but it certainly wasn’t a factory job. But a 289 powered Champ would have scooted along quite well.
So who knows, maybe the badge was a bit of Farmer Dale humour. In retrospect, the Cutlass’ persistent symptoms indicate a severely clogged catalytic converter, which together with the altitude made the car run very poorly—yes, that Studebaker truck just walked away on up the hill.
Don’t let the funkiness deceive you, those are tough trucks. They could easily outhaul the competition. These also were available with a 5 speed transmission. Couple that with a 289 and you have a very versatile drivetrain. Being the underdog really made Studebaker try harder and they usually delivered.
You’d have thought the low-cost (but tough) Champ would have sold better, and I’m guessing there are two reasons it didn’t. First, by 1960, Studebaker was quickly becoming ‘dead company walking’ and no one wanted to get stuck with an orphan you couldn’t get parts for.
Second, and more critical, was the type of buyer most likely to buy these would be rural folks needing a solid, basic work truck at a low price, and I’d be willing to bet that the Studebaker dealer network was a whole lot more thin out in the sticks than Ford or Chevy. Back in the day, damn near every town, no matter how small, had either a Ford or Chevy dealership. The vast GM dealer network was a huge reason they were so successful. Studebaker? Not so much.
At what point did it become apparent to the general public that Studebaker was on its death bed?
Transporting my mind back to the early 60s… I might or might not have recognized this as a Dodge-sourced bed, but I might have asked myself, “Gee, if they can’t afford to design and stamp a properly-matched bed, how long until they can’t afford to do anything?”
Great Post Mr. N. Theres still a daily worker running around up here in Bellingham.
I love something about how unashamedly cobbled together and recycled this truck was, down to the name badges!
The whole narrative has parallels to Isuzu and Mitsubishi’s histories, at some point they were fielding rebadged domestic pickups that nobody bought.
I remember seeing a widebox Champ that used to frequent the grocery store I worked at in high school. It was a nice orange color, with one small rust spot but otherwise well kept. I had seen the occasional Stude with the stepside bed, but never the fleetside, and I always wondered if it was kind of a one off homebrew since it sure looked that way. The truth wasn’t TOO far off that, they just did a lot more of those ‘one-offs’.
I like these. Gimme the standard stepside, I tend to prefer those anyway but the fleetside really looks wonky. I wonder how well a late model Dodge Dakota chassis would work under one of these. With the HO 4.7 V8, manual trans and 4×4 it would seem to be the perfect upgrade.
There were a very few 2R style 1 tons built in the early 60’s that had 3-53 Detroit Diesels in them, probably the first quasi-light duty diesel domestic trucks. Always wondered if any 3-53’s found their way into pickups
Love that rear bumper and connected anti-skid metal side sweep.
I’d probably need a backup camera for unloading at the town dump lest I damage the brush dumpster with that rather solid rear end.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that rear bumper was not a factory option. Am I right?
But it looks… very substantial.
If my wife asks if those pants make her butt look big, I might try saying “No. It looks…very substantial.”
This factory Frankenstein would be the talk of the dump runners, one of about 5800 and looking good still being used as intended 55 years later. 289 and 3 speed overdrive for me, please. I’ll take this over a Toyota any day of the week, even with the added hassle of ordering and waiting for not so common parts from time to time.
Since most BOF style pickups in this country were sold in cab n chassis form and had flat deck dropsider bodies built on them that never matches the cab styling this Studebaker doesnt look so strange, in fact the only Stude Ive seen this model was a flatdeck, I though at the time it might have been cut down from a car lots of light trucks were created that way here due to shortages of the real thing, Good looking old ute I’d drive it,
In answer to your initial observation about stubbiness, The only US made 8′ box pickups shorter than a Champ would be forward control or semi-forward control layouts. The Jeep FC170 manages a 10′ bed in almost the same overall length. I’ve also seen some cutaway van pickups using Econoline or Sprinter chassis the get a long bed with a short cab.
Little off topic, but… crew cab Champ?
Will the whole ’60 Lark 4-dr body (minus trunk)
just bolt to a Stude truck frame?
Box would have to be custom length, OC.