The 1959 Lark was created by chopping off the front end rear ends of the Studebaker Commander, resulting in a very short (175″) car on a 108″ wb to compete in the newly hot compact car field, one year before the Big Three jumped in. By 1961, the compact market was expanding (literally) with what came to be known as “senior compacts”, in the form of the Buick Special, Olds F-85 and Pontiac Tempest, all on a 112″ wheelbase, and Ford’s Comet, with a 111″ wheelbase.
The news of these was not a well kept secret, and not surprisingly, Studebaker wanted to play in this arena too. And once again, the solution was easy enough: just use the former President center body section with its longer rear door and plop it down on the 113″ wb chassis already being used under the Lark wagon. This had already been in existence as the “Econo-Miler” taxi cab. Bingo! And make the V8 standard. Take that, all new Buick Special with your highfalutin aluminum V8!
The result was compelling, in certain ways, but not surprisingly, when you’re stuck with old bodies, chassis, and heavy engines, there were compromises too.
Car Life points out that the basic formula that the Cruiser espoused was what “the hypothetical average man” had been asking for: a car that encompassed the best qualities of compacts and full-size cars. Not too big but roomy enough for his growing family, husky V8 performance, automatic transmission convenience, all wrapped up in a still very compact package, a mere 179″ long. That’s 14″ shorter than that all-new Buick Special and those other GM senior compacts. If this is really what the average man wants, then as the sub-title says: “then Studebaker-Packard is sitting pretty”. As if…
CL points out that a Lark with V8 and automatic got over 23 mpg on the Mobilgas economy run, “so the stipulations concerning smoothness and economy are well met”. Sure, as long as you know how to hypermile.
But they quickly move on the the Cruiser’s (and all Lark V8’s) Achilles heel: that very chunky V8, almost as as heavy as a big Cadillac V8, made these short cars excessively front heavy. This of course had a negative affect on its handling. And then there was the steering, which came in for pretty heavy criticism. They don’t say it, but presumably this Cruiser had the optional power steering, as it was deemed utterly devoid of any road feel or feedback: “but a total lack of feedback is inexcusable. it could even be dangerous…near impossible to drive at anything above a moderate speed on a high-crowned road”.
CL points out that the Lark was hardly unique in this respect, but it was particularly bad in this case.
On the other hand, the ride was better than average, inasmuch as it was both comfortable as well as “controlled”, thanks to improved shocks.
And the brakes were also better than average, with lining area increased 20% over the 1960 models, and there were even fins on the drums in those cars equipped with the 289 V8.
As to its interior, the Cruiser’s interior cam in for good marks, “if for no other reason than its unexpected roominess. Well, if you take your your extended wheelbase top-of-the line President and give it a Larkectomy on the front and rear, that should not be a surprise.
Of course the Cruiser’s real strength lay in its 200 hp 289 V8, which turned it into a very well-performing car. 0-60 in ten seconds flat used to be the domain of “hot cars”, but its curb weight of 3385 lbs curb meant that even wit a two-barrel carb, the 289 moved the Cruiser quite effortlessly, including to 100 mph in 17.8 seconds.
That same extended body as the Cruiser was also offered as the Lark HD sedan, obviously intended primarily for taxi use. Given its excellent interior room to overall length ratio, it certainly was rather ideal for that use.
Fit and finish were rated as being up to industry standards, which CL said “is not saying much nowadays”. There were a few glitches, like the exterior door handle coming off.
CL closes out “since the Cruiser does so closely approximate what people say they want in a car, it will be enlightening to see if average does as average says.”
We have the benefit of hindsight to answer that with a resounding No! Lark sales fell from 128k in 1960 to 67k in 1961, a painful blow after tow good years and unexpected profits. There’s no breakout of the Cruiser’s sales in 1961, but these were very rare back in the day, so its safe to say that the Cruiser did not amount to a significant share of ’61 Lark sales.
But the new 113″ wb format for four door sedans was adopted across the line in 1962, so in that regard, the ’61 Cruiser was a foreshadowing of things to come, for better or for worse. The Lark did essentially become a “senior compact” or something like that, and of course added length to its front and rear ends. But it never appealed to “the average buyer”, not by a long shot.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1959 Studebaker Lark VIII Regal Hardtop Coupe – Studebaker’s Last Hurrah
Automotive History: The Studebaker V8 Engine – Punching Below Its Weight
Automotive History: The Studebaker V8 Engine – Punching Below Its Weight
Car Show Classic: 1963 Studebaker Lark Regal – A Left Brain Car For A Right Brain World
List price: $2458; Price as tested: $3152. “Mr. Average” with $3152 to spend in ’61 could do a whole lot better than buying this. Admittedly, 0-60 in 10 sec. is pretty hot for a 1961 compact. But looks? Handling? Newness? Prestige? No. It’s pretty fast and has plenty of good, upright roominess (for a compact). But that’s about it. In a few short years, resale value approaches zero. Repair instance was mediocre to terrible. No, this will not appeal to “average” car buyers of the day. I smell turkey.
In 3 years, the Mustang will show the world what average buyers want!
You must’ve missed the HCC article, a few years back, and with reasons, on how the author believed the Studebaker V8 was America’s best V8 for durability.
That was a totally biased “puff piece” by a long time Studebaker fan, and was completely lacking in objectivity. Many of the things he said was pure conjecture. The reality of the Studebaker V8 is somewhat different, and I tried to give a much more objective and nuanced picture of it in my article on it. You must have missed it:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/engine-history-the-studebaker-v8/
The short summary is this: in its basic design, it was not state of the art, and Studebaker’s apparent foundry abilities meant that it was heavier than average for its time. Not because heaviness is a virtue though, but because of those design and foundry limitations.
Its head design always limited its breathing abilities, with small valves and ports. And the fact that it had forged crankshaft and such is a red herring, because so did other engines of the time, including the Chevy V8. Ford pioneered cast cranks, and they weren’t used by Chevy until quite some years later. Anyway, that’s not really an issue; how often did a crankshaft break?
As to its durability, the Studebaker V8 did have some inherent issue, primarily with wear of the rocker shafts/arms, due to an oiling issue that later was rectified to some extent.
It’s generally not a good idea to believe what a fan boy of any brand writes about how his brand of engine is “the best”.
I thought we had resolved the weight issue, in that the Stude V8 was not unduly heavy for its time, given its external dimensions and bore centers. The problem was that while other V8s with similar dimensions were able to grow a lot, the Studebaker’s displacement/bore was limited by the way the cooling passages and such were placed and maybe some other layout issues.
I don’t know if you saw this article, which recounts Ted Harbit’s experiences with Studebakers over many years of drag racing and his vouching for the engine’s unusual durability.
https://web.archive.org/web/20211021013611/https://chromjuwelen.com/network/228-blog-hemmings/214606-a-little-studebaker-v-8-history-with-one-of-the-most-successful-stude-drag-racers
One of the few other times the Stude V8 showed its stuff in racing was the year that Holman & Moody prepped some Larks for a race at Sebring. It would be expected that the V8 Larks would dispatch with the other American 6 cylinder compacts, but the surprise was how they kept up with the Jaguars. I think Holman & Moody’s work with the racing Larks (when they had spare time because of the auto manufacturers pulling out of racing for a short time) was a reason for finding and fixing that lubrication problem you reference. There is not a lot written about those Sebring Larks, but I have found this.
https://vault.si.com/vault/1960/01/04/a-second-look-at-the-compact-cars
I don’t think you and I will ever “resolve” our perspectives on the Studebaker V8 🙂
in that the Stude V8 was not unduly heavy for its time, given its external dimensions and bore centers. The problem was that while other V8s with similar dimensions were able to grow a lot, the Studebaker’s displacement/bore was limited by the way the cooling passages and such were placed and maybe some other layout issues.
But why design such a “big” and heavy engine in the first place, for a company that was all about building cars that were smaller and lighter than the Big 3? FWIW, 289 (or 304) cubic inches was plenty of displacement for everything Studebaker ever built, right to the end. What would they have needed a 429 for?? (as in the Caddy V8, which had the same basic external size and which the Studebaker largely copied?)
If they had designed a scaled-down Caddy copy, with its slipper pistons and such, they could still have had 289 (or 304 cubic inches) but less mass. The question as to why they chose to copy the Cad V8 in size and weight, but limit it to 289 inches is the key question, and seems to me a poor choice. And it saddled them forever with an overly-heavy engine for their relatively light cars. Having more displacement wouldn’t have solved the weight problem.
As to anecdotal experiences in the hands of a couple of racers who knew how to massage the most out of them, you’re going to find analogs with any engine. They do not contribute anything materially to the overall big picture of any engine.
The simple reality, as we’ve gone over endlessly here, is that the Studebaker engine was 1.) heavy and 2.) had heads that intrinsically limited its power output.
Yes, there were (and are) always exceptional stories that seem to defy a general assessment; meanwhile, what engines were the overwhelming majority of various kinds of racers using? By the tens or hundreds of thousands? Not Studebakers.
I have zero desire to malign the Studebaker V8. But puff pieces like that one at Hemmings by a fan boy are just that. “America’s Best V-8 Engine”? Sorry, not buying it.
Personally, I buy that author’s opinion more than Paul Niedermeyer’s. He had worked on all makes and in fact in collector cars owns several Big Three cars.
There is only one thing Hemmings does well: classified ads. Their ‘journalism’ and bloggery are a fetid mix of pet opinions and guesses and just-so stories and whole-cloth bulk wrap, all dolled up and presented as fact.
And that’s just looking only at Hemmings, which looks even worse when compared to the likes of Collectible Automobile.
Whoever you are Paul you know virtually nothing about reality. Obviously a big 3 fan that can’t see the vast superiority of the 61 Studes over the big 3 trash of the time. Personally ridden in and encountered several 61 larks. And owned ,ridden in driven big 3 of that era. Big 3 we’re vastly inferior. Your ignorance must give you
Blissful solace, which works apart from reality.
My only “Blissful solace” from your very harsh comment is that apparently I’m not the only one who had a hard time seeing “the vast superiority of the 61 Studes over the big 3 trash at the time”. But it’s good to know that someone out there did, just not enough of them to save the company.
“Whoever you are Paul you know virtually nothing about reality.”
Come to think of it Paul, I don’t think you fit all that well in my virtual reality either.
I know this isn’t really germane to the discussion, but wanted to mention that Bob Palma, the author of the HCC “puff piece”, passed away last night after a ~6mo battle with pancreatic cancer that quickly metastasized. I did meet him in person once, though most of our communication was through a forum. He was certainly well rounded and knowledgeable enough to deliver information objectively, and owned a number of different makes of cars, but was always pretty hardcore in championing Studebaker. Part of the reason I’ve gained more than a passing interest in them is due to the level of devotion of their fan base, even close to sixty years on.
Their V8 is quite a sturdy lump, and still has a lot of goodness baked into it. It was never “cost optimized” near the level that the small block Chevy was… I’ve done more miles behind a gen 1 SBC than anything else, and they’ve got a lot of good qualities too. The stamped rockers on individual ball-studs are a bit cheap, cams tend to go flat, valve seals and guides wear, and cylinder bores seem to wear quicker than others- yet they seem to be able to keep running in this worn out state long after others woulda died. The Studebaker’s timing gears don’t stretch, seldom fail, but can transmit more harmonics than a chain. I’ve never been very fond of clickety-clacking solid lifters in a street engine, yet Studebaker specified them to prevent issues with cheapskates who wouldn’t buy detergent oil. There are quite a few more fiddly parts in an engine requiring more machining and assembly steps in a Studebaker… it looks and feels like a more costly engine. Yet they never managed to get all the core sand out of the blocks after they were cast; it’s pretty common to find healthy gobs of sand packed in with rusty core support wires after all these years. And yeah, there are still quite a few engines out there that have never been apart. My ’62 Lark’s 259 is still going strong at just over 110k miles, with even compression and no significant blow-by. That’s not a huge amount of mileage, but I think it’s going to rack up quite a few more before requiring a rebuild.
Oh good lord! Am I fan boying now?!
Of course you are! And that’s perfectly ok.
Seriously, it’s very easy for me to understand why Studebaker has such a devoted following. They did things differently, often for the better, if not always. But most of all, it’s natural to love the underdog, and that describes Studebaker perfectly.
As to Bob, I’m sorry to hear of his passing. I understand why articles like that get written, but the problem is that many readers take them face value. There’s no way I would be able to pick any one V8 engine and call it “the best”. At what? One would have to define the parameters.
The other thing that sort of annoys me is the false assertion that the Studebaker V8 was so overly heavy because it was designed for higher future compression ratios, like 14:1. That’s a bogus claim, just a way to try to explain why Studebaker’s foundry couldn’t cast a lighter block. There is zero reason why a high compression engine needs to be overweight.Yet that fake fact gets regurgitated endlessly. Doing that is counter-productive.
I truly love some aspects of Studebakers, but I’m also clear-eyed about their limitations. I can see both sides of the coin.
I’ve fallen in love with several of them over the years, if only vicariously. But I’d be very happy to take a ’59 Lark VIII hardtop coupe home. And a few others too.
Regardless of the fabled reliability, I never understood why Studebaker did not – as a stopgap – design aluminium heads for its V8 which would have helped lose 100 lb and could have been more efficient.
On the other hand, when Studebaker tried to convert its flathead 6 to an overhead configuration the result was hardly inspiring, so maybe they did not have any high quality design capacity left by that stage…
Or even just better-breathing iron heads would have helped.
In 3 years, the Mustang will show the world what average buyers want!
Bingo! Studebaker’s final coffin nail.
Uh….by that time, South Bend was already closed down.
The Mustang sold like crazy, but it was still essentially a Falcon with a drop-in gas tank. I walk right past all of them at shows and cruises.
They were still selling cars from Canada through 1966, eh? A neighbor in Iowa City bought one, with the Chevy six. I said “final coffin nail”, the last of many.
Mustang was a great looking car and it was a 2 door hardtop! It sold like hot cakes.
Of course, the upright roominess of the body-on-1952-frame Stude suffered compared to the similarly upright but unibody senior Ramblers.
The 1961 Rambler Classic (the middle level between the American and the Ambassador) was a nicely turned out car that hit many of the targets of the Lark. While not a world-beater, the Rambler upped the ante on many of the styling and “newness” elements that the Lark lacked.
It was not that the Lark was a terrible car, or that the Rambler Classic was a great car, but comparison shoppers would have found a lot more to like in the Rambler, head to head with the Lark. Relative sales numbers seem to confirm.
How different was the 1953 frame/chassis/platform from the 1952? I’ve read everything from almost all new to complete carryover, so don’t know what to believe.
I do wonder why they didn’t allow for footwells given they knew the ’53s would have lower rooflines, especially on the coupes
No one but “step down” Hudsons had footwells back then. Even the new and designed to be space efficient unit body 1956 Rambler didn’t. The Studebaker coupes had half a footwell in the back seat between the frame and driveshaft, so they knew they were really needed. I bet the 1953 frame was an adaptation of the fairly new postwar 1947 frame, and if so every Studebaker until the end was on it. They never got a ball joint front suspension.
Mercedes still had king pins when Stude did in the early ‘60’s. The ‘62 Corvette had king pins too.
Hindsight is 20/20. As it happens, Consumer Reports’ 1961 buyer’s guide (available at mercomatic.com) rated this car a top buy, citing good quality construction and an above average repair record, and despite the anticipated poor resale value.
Car Life’s headlines are a bit odd – they referred to the top-end Mopar shown a few days ago as a “Chrysler Imperial”, even though Imperial was supposed to be a separate make and not a Chrysler. This one by contrast calls the tested a car a “Lark Cruiser” with no mention of Studebaker even though the Lark was sold as one and indeed was Studebaker’s mainstream model. Fortunately the text is what I’ve come to expect from CL – concerned with how the car drives and how easy it is to live with, without Road & Track’s sometimes over-obsession with technical details that may go over the head of those not intimately familiar with how a car’s mechanical bits work, nor was it Motor Trend’s puff piece, and no discussion of styling or design figuring readers can decide those things for themselves. The trunk by the way looks reasonably roomy to my eyes, and it was rare back then for the spare tire to be that neatly recessed into the floor. Where did the gas tank go?
Studebaker didn’t have to resurrect the longer center section of the old President Classic to create the Lark Cruiser, as a long-wheelbase Lark with the four-inch stretch was already sold to taxi fleets as the Econ-O-Miler in ’59 and ’60; all Studebaker had to do was add features and plushness to make the Cruiser (the Econ-O-Miler was also sold in 1958, putting sparse Scotsman-like trim on the long wheelbase sedan). It looks like the Lark HD replaced the EoM in 1961).
Although Studebaker is often criticized for selling the same basic car from 1953 to 1966 and being outmoded by the 1960s, I regard these Studes more like the Volvo 140/240 or Saab 99/900 that were sold for decades and didn’t change much in appearance, but stayed up to date with mechanical and feature upgrades. As CL notes, the 1961 Lark got larger brakes (on V8s), improved shocks, and more rear seat legroom in the Cruiser (also new that year were modern suspended pedals and a revised dashboard with more padding). Studebaker was also ahead of their competitors offering a limited-slip differential, and two years later offering disk brakes. They weren’t the technologically backward company they’re often made out to be. I wonder if substituting the small-block Chevy V8 in 1965-66 solved the front weight problem, as the SBC V8 was famously small and light whereas the Stude V8 was unusually heavy for its smallish displacement.
Yes, I failed to clarify that the longer President body had already been in use in the Economiler; I’ve added that now. Thanks.
The only Lark that I have driven was a 1960 entry level, base model with the small 6 cylinder engine and the automatic transmission that normally started in second gear.
It truly was one of the biggest “nothing burger” cars that I have ever driven.
Yep. You had to step up to the next engine in the lineup to get the beef. That doubled your horsepower, thus allowing you to move with some alacrity despite the second gear start Blight-O-Matic. FWIW- the six cylinder cars should start in first gear.
Why Studebaker decided to de-stroke the little Champion mill back to its pre-1955 displacement, knocking off 15 cubic inches and 11 hrspwrs, is beyond me. Sure, they managed to wring out 90hp in the 1959 version of the 170cid as opposed to 85 in the 1954, but squeezing an extra few horses out of the 101hp 1955-58 185cid might have been a better (if only slightly) path.
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.
— Often attributed to Henry Ford
Unfortunately, when it comes to answering surveys, Mr. Average Man is a complete liar. He will always give the “correct” answer to the survey taker, showing himself to be a sensible, rational, person; free of all those nasty inclinations that would make him a status-seeking person. But when it comes time to actually reach for his wallet and buy the bloody thing, style, status, and prestige (the reasons his disgusting next door neighbor considers when buying a car) always win out.
And it didn’t help that by this point, the feeling was that Studebaker was at death’s door.
Yup, people always say they want one thing, but when it comes time to actually buy, they often buy something very different. People say they want sensible, but then they buy style and image, especially back then.
Since the main complaint seems to be about the engine, I’ll propose this “alternate history” idea…
Instead of waiting until 1964/5 to close and sell their engine foundry, and switch to buying Chevrolet engines, Studebaker does the exact same thing, but in 1958. I’m sure that buying engines makes the per unit cost go up, but then they wouldn’t be stuck with the engine(s) that were a bit of a dog, nor have to spend money developing and building a better version. A nice 4-bbl 283 would have solved a lot of the Lark’s problems.
Go back two years prior and they also could have used the Packard V8 (which actually saw use in the 1956 Studebaker Golden Hawk) without having to buy engines from a competitor, though it was no lightweight either at least in its initial form. It would have allowed for larger, more powerful engines though without resorting to supercharging or hand-finessing to create the R3/R4.
A neat optional feature starting on the ’61 Larks was the Skytop sunroof at $185, a large opening covered by a fabric top. Nothing else domestic offered anything like it.
Personal taste only, but I always disliked Rambler’s instrument panels of the time. Some ‘Googie’ shapes and style, and I hated that “123456789101112” numbering. Studes in ’63 and later had nice, straightforward panels IMHO with full instrumentation standard and padding from top to bottom. Plus, if you got a tach it was in the panel, not on the floor, strapped to the column, or tacked on top of the dash.
This is my favorite Cruiser–a ’63. To paraphrase the Eagles, there are some “Mercedes bends”, plus it could be had with a sunroof, supercharger, disc brakes, suspension upgrades with the ‘Super’ package, and luxurious broadcloth seating, and was also available with a floor-shift automatic (PRND21) that could be held manually in second gear.
I always thought the ’63-only rear-door cutout resembled later Sevilles and ’77 GM B-Bodies.
Don’t bet too much money on that!
For one thing, Stude offered it a year earlier, plus that press piece makes it sounds like the car is sent elsewhere for the installation. Show me it in the ’62 Lancer brochure and I’ll bite! Done at South Bend for the Studes.
While I’m thinking about it, I think the ’62 and later Studes looked a lot nicer than the ’59-61. I liked the full-radius rear wheel cutouts. I also think 15 inch wheels made Larks seems more like midsizes than other compacts.
Despite a 40-day strike, Lark production was up from 66K in ’61 to 92K in ’62, nice increase.
Packard V8 had oiling issues and also those cars had vacuum windshield wipers–at that price point! Even Stude trucks had electric wipers in ’56.
Studebaker really destroyed their market by butchering their bread-and-butter 1953 sedans and never really fixing that until 1963. A whole 10 years with obvious styling cues to what was widely considered to be an abomination.
Yes the Packsrd V8 had oiling issues, Packard enthusiasts have solutions. Didn’t it essentially weigh the same as the 289? Don’t know why they couldn’t have fitted electric wipers in 1956, but Packard engineering was overwhelmed by then I think.
The 1955 Packard 352 weighed 698 lb complete, excluding air cleaner. (I don’t know why, that’s the way the specs list it.) It was not a lightweight engine, although it had a lot more displacement potential than the Studebaker V-8.
I had always heard that the Studebaker 289 with the supercharger in the 1957 Golden Hawk weighed more than the Packard V8 in the 1956 Golden Hawk, that’s what my “Complete Book of Collectible Cars 1930-1980, by Auto Editors of Consumer Guide” says, without quoting any numbers. I found these numbers on a Studebaker website, clarifying text in parentheses:
(Studebaker 289 sans supercharger) Approximately 685 lbs complete and ready to run. The Packard V8 weighs 710 (So the Studebaker engine is only 25 lbs lighter than the Packard) Add 45 lbs (to the Studebaker engine) for the supercharger equipment (so 730 lbs for the Studebaker engine with Supercharger, 20 lbs heavier than the Packard)
I had always heard that the Studebaker 289 with the supercharger in the 1957 Golden Hawk weighed more than the Packard V8 in the 1956 Golden Hawk,
That’s what I’ve read too.
In any case, both were too heavy for the relatively light Studebakers.
….not to mention reliability issues with the Twin Ultramatic. The single ’56 Caribbean convertible my hometown dealer sold, 18 cars from the last serial number, couldn’t back out of a parking space when it was a couple years old and had to be towed to the dealership.
This would have been disastrous for Studebaker’s already diminished reputation.
First, there was a fairly widespread belief that making one’s own engines was the real dividing line between Real Automakers and makers of what used to be called “assembled cars.” (Obviously, almost all automakers have always bought in a lot of components, up to and including transmissions, but engines were kind of the tipping point, psychologically speaking.)
Second, when Studebaker announced they would no longer be making their own engines in 1964, everyone took it as a sign that they were on their way out as an automaker, which of course was true.
Third, in 1957–1958, Studebaker-Packard’s financial problems were frequently reported, and there was a great deal of public speculation about whether the company was teetering on the edge of collapse. This did their sales no good at all, and it further depressed resale values, which weren’t great to start with. (Who wants to buy a car, especially a used car, if it looks like you won’t be able to get parts and service.)
If you put all those things together, it would have signaled very strongly that the company was on its way out, further depressing sales. Since the Studebaker-Packard board had already more or less decided that they should diversify into other industries (which they did) and get out of the volatile car business, I think the likely effect would have been to limit or remove the brief reprieve the Studebaker car line got in 1959–60 and accelerated the move to wrap things up. That in turn might have meant Studebaker stumbling along for a few additional years without Sherwood Egbert, the Avanti, etc., before closing the doors earlier than they in fact did.
^This. In today’s world, no one thinks twice about having an engine in a car from a different manufacturer and it’s not a particularly bad idea in terms of cutting R&D costs for a new engine.
But back in the day, it was heresy. Think about the scandal when GM got caught putting Chevy engines in Oldsmobiles.
Yeah, by 1965, Hamilton was using Chevy engines, but everyone knew that was just to keep enough cars going to the few remaining Studebaker dealerships for legal reasons before they shuttered the whole operation, and everyone knew it. It didn’t hurt that GM had already established a history of doing the same thing with Canadian Pontiacs for years, but atleast they were both GM products.
As stated, putting Chevy engines in Studebakers while they were still building them in South Bend simply would have wiped-out the company right then and there.
> Second, when Studebaker announced they would no longer be making their own engines in 1964, everyone took it as a sign that they were on their way out as an automaker, which of course was true.
I think closing South Bend (except the engine foundry) in Dec ’63 made that obvious already.
Rumours were already circulating for years that Studebaker wanted out of the automobile business (which of course were true), but sales were up in 1962.
I’m unclear given the BoD’s wishes why they hired Sherwood Egbert who was gung-ho about saving Studebaker’s car business.
My understanding is that the board was really not expecting Egbert to do more than tidy up the automotive business in preparation for winding it down. Egbert had no automotive background — he came from the McCulloch chainsaw company, which was one of the businesses Studebaker-Packard had acquired in its diversification spree, and he knew almost nothing about cars.
Up until now I had failed to realize that the reverse angled C pillar was part of the door and not structural. This to my eyes is the single biggest styling tie to the half-baked 1953 sedans. Looking at this car it’s immediately obvious it’s a rehash from 1953. Not something that sends a good message to the 1961 consumer. But it’s just a door stamping. They couldn’t fix that for 8 years?
They did fix that on the short-wheelbase Lark sedans, as well as on coupes and hardtops, all of which had slightly forward-leaning C pillars. The long-wheelbase sedan body was only used on top-line models and fleet specials, so it had to wait until 1962 for this change, at which time all sedans were moved to the long wheelbase.
Like the styling of the rear door then or not, one thing I appreciate about it is you can get in the back seat without conking your head–unlike in a ’56 Packard Patrician. Don’t ask how I know.
I did a double-take when reading the Lark HD ad’s mention of the Skybolt OHV 6 and it’s “ram induction manifolding.” Unfortunately, I was unable to turn up any clear pictures of the intake or exhaust manifolds of the Skybolt. There are some clear pictures of the head, but there are only 6 total ports, so presumably the ports are siamesed intake/intake and exhaust/exhaust? We probably shouldn’t expect too much from a 170 cubic inch mill, but I wonder how the HP and torque compare to Chrysler’s 170 CID slant six? (An engine that could lay a more credible claim to “ram induction manifolding.)
112 hp
This kind of “ram induction” (on the slant six) with long runners improves mainly torque at the lower rev ranges. In any case, comparing rated hp numbers on these various sixes is somewhat irrelevant as they were all tuned mildly. The big difference is in their potential, which the /6 had gobs of. With the optional Hyperpak, the 170 /6 made 148 hp. And there was potential for more. Not so in the Studebaker 6.
Studebaker got around that…by actually offering a V8.
Wonder how many bags of groceries fit into the “small trunk”?
All this talk reminds me of my Dad’s friend Myron who had at the same time, a ’64 Chevelle two-door wagon with the 230 six, and a ’60 Lark VIII Deluxe four-door sedan. As a ten- or eleven-year old, in the late sixties, I remember kidding him about having a Studebaker. I plainly remember him saying, “That Lark will run rings around that Chevy”.
Comparing a 6 to a V8 is always makes for a brilliant and relevant comment. How about comparing a 327 Chevelle to a Studebaker 6? How insightful would that comment be?
As my father used to say at the dinner table: “Must you externalize every fleeting thought?”
Performance wasn’t part of my comment to Myron, but his reply noted it. He said nothing about the quality and/or driving superiority of the Chevelle. You know, especially since the Studebaker was so nose-heavy.
Do you really try to be so unlikeable, or does it come naturally? I suspect the latter.
Best-looking Cruiser to my eyes–the ’63.
Best-looking Cruiser to my eyes–the ’63.
Ah, nevermind. This is absolutely the fussiest car site I attempt to post on, so far as posting pictures. Sigh.
I like the ’63 Cruiser too as well as the heavily modified ’64. But the ’63 looks like it could be a European import, whereas the ’64 is trying hard to look like a typical American compact sedan from the Big 3 or AMC (and mostly pulls it off). I also like the ’62 and ’63 hardtops look very Mercedes.
I owned a ‘63 Lark Daytona Skytop with factory R1 engine, Twin Traction, and factory air for 23 years. Same color combo as the car you pictured. It’s in Australia now. Several pics of it online if you Google my name.
Grew up totally Chevy, but don’t really desire one as a hobby car. Plus, the parts availability and club support for Studes surprises big three guys.
Reduce the picture size. We don’t allow giant full size images.
On paper, this car should have been a winner.
Then I actually saw a Lark in person and the reality was completely different.
I understood why fewer buyers were selecting them.
A friend who worked on all the sixties compacts used to say that at least the Lark was proven, sturdy stuff, instead of the ‘foolishness’ (his words, not mine) of rope drive, aluminum 215 V8’s, Corvair rear ends, etc.
Obviously, people tend to follow the crowd. Always did, always will. If we assign best-quality to best-seller, than McDonald’s is the best fast food out there. Ugh.
I personally don’t care for the ’61 Lark Cruiser’s styling. But I’m not thinking a Falcon or Valiant is exactly a siren either.
I know this article is about ’61 but I always enjoyed this ’63 commercial, and the ’63 four-door Studes are my favorite four-door Studes for looks. Rear doors remind me of later Sevilles and GM B-bodies.
I’m a firm believer that ‘volume normalizes bad, or at least meh, styling’. In other words, the Big Three gets away with it. To my eyes, that Falcon in the commercial looks so dumpy compared to the Lark…13 inch wheels, droopy rear wheel openings, etc. Instrument panel is suckier IMHO too. Now I’ll admit Stude should’ve put whitewalls and wheel covers on the Falcon like they did on their Lark. But I like that Lark.
Here’s my former ’63 Lark Daytona Skytop R1:
http://www.studebakerskytop.com/billpresslerpics.html
Nice!
You seem to have pegged me as a Studebaker “hater”; if so, you’ve made a false assumption. I love them; lots of great qualities. But I’m a bit objective about them (and other brands too), meaning I can see their limitations and flaws just as well as their strengths.
That comes a bit easier if you haven’t owned any of the brands back them. I can hate or praise them all, without prejudice.
I’m a big believer that it’s easy to become ‘Big Three’-brainwashed without even knowing it. Hence, constant comments on various discussion forums about Stude’s use of king pins, while gushing over M-B products of the day and ’62 Corvettes and omitting discussion of king pins. I’ve been told there are 1949 Chevy part nos. in a ’62 Corvette front end, but no one EVER mentions that, LOL.
Larks outshone Big Three compacts (and I grew up strictly-Chevy) IMHO in instrument panels, interior room, instrumentation, engine performance, stopping, and automatic transmission availabilty (PRND21). Well, at least in ’63. Those are not insignificant things.
Styling is of course subjective, but at Hershey a few years ago was a stunning Bordeaux Red ’64 Daytona Hardtop, supercharged 4-speed car mounted on Halibrand mags which supposedly were available through Stude dealers’ parts departments. Next to it was a ’63 Olds Cutlass coupe. IMHO that day, that is the worst early’60’s GM styling. There was not a single thing I thought was appealing or stood the test of time, about the styling, in or out. Well, I did like the interior door panels.
I just saw one of these in the background of a recent episode of “Godfather of Harlem,” parked next to a Rambler American.
“The Cars of ‘The Godfather of Harlem'” would be a good feature subject. There are some nice cars in that show (which is set in 1963–1964), although as usual for Hollywood, everything is a lot cleaner and shinier than it probably would have been IRL.