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 miss Studebakers .
” Ask The Man Who Owns One ! ” .
Was the sales tag for a long time .
-Nate
That was Packard’s slogan. Did they apply it to Studebakers after the merger?
Like BigOldChryslers, I wonder if Studebaker-Packard used that tagline after the merger. But the slogan was originally used by Packard.
It was used until 1958, but referred to Packards only. J.W. Packard invented the slogan in 1902, and it remained one of the best automobile slogans throughout its history.
Or was it used to be snarky towards their Packard-driving friends by owners of Cadillacs and Lincolns? Actually, I’m not sure that Studebaker ever had a good, long term slogan. The “Different by Design” slogan of the early 60s may have been as good as their slogans ever got, but it is far from ingrained in popular culture, then or now.
I’m quite sure that slogan for Packard predates Lincoln, and maybe even came before Cadillac was a worthy competitor.
‘Ask the man who owns one’ That was Packards tag line if I am not mistaken
Oops ~
I just remember that sign hanging in the Studebaker Dealer and all the Studebaker owners (New England was always big on them) would tell me this too .
Thanx for correcting me there .
-Nate
A perfect analysis. And as someone who grew up in South Bend, I can attest that the “make the most out of what you have” attitude was and is endemic to the city.
Just the car company.
As an alumnus, the University down the street is doing quite well, thank you!
My grandfather, father and uncles worked at Studebakers until they closed. My dad was a tool & die maker (made the molds) from 1947 till they closed in 1964
Great analysis. In retrospect, it’s too bad that Studebaker didn’t keep a face-lifted version of the 1952 car for the sedans, or offer something like the more conventionally styled 1956 model as a sedan. It could have offered the Starlight and Starliner as the first true “personal” cars, which would have been a coup in 1953.
What amazed me in doing this was seeing just how many changes even I had never noticed to these cars. Studebaker perfected the art of creating a car that was simultaneously both new and a carryover every year. And I am just waiting to hear how many others never noticed the 53-55 2 door sedans with the fixed-in-place door panels.
I had noticed the two-door sedans with the unfinished door panels a few years ago in a Studebaker club publication. I couldn’t believe that a car maker would release something that looked so unfinished as a final product. It looked terrible…I also can’t believe that anyone would buy a vehicle with that level of finish (or lack of finish).
We had a ’55 Champion two-door sedan when I was little. I don’t remember much, but I sure think I’d remember a funny fake door. I have a dim memory that they bought the ’55 after the ’56s came out, so it was probably a late-’55.
Never knew about the windshield change either, amazing research Jim!
55s had a vertical chrome trim peice on the two door sedan that covered the rearmost seam IIRC.
I first noticed those welded in panels back when I was a kid in the ’60’s. Even then I thought it looked tacky. I always thought they must have just given up on the 2 door design and welded up a 4 door. I never did like them but have always loved the Lowey coupes. Even though I lived in the other end of Indiana, Studes were very common. In fact I can remember the State Police using Studebaker Marshal cruisers in ’62 or ’63. Of course the State Highway Department also used a lot of Stude pickup trucks too.
I confess,I never noticed the fixed door panels.I’ve been going to car shows since the 70s(especially American ones),my excuse is that Studebakers are a bit thin on the ground in the UK compared to other American cars!
The last Studebakers were a very attractive car but so was the opposition,65 and 66 being a high point in US car design.A shame they had to close
I noticed those while reading Studebaker: The Postwar Years. They look like really crude bodies Holden put on GM sedan chassis for WWII staff cars.
The other thing that’s always bothered me about the original design is how the rear edge of the rear door cuts vertically through the C-Pillar. Compare to Dutch Darrin’s more elegant ’51 Kaiser.
IIRC, two things that remained constant – and antique – on these were the suspension and the 6 cylinder engine, although the latter did eventually get overhead valves.
I was at a cruise night on Friday and I saw the same maroon ’58 Studebaker sedan pictured above. I’d bet money that it was the same car.
The maroon/white ’58 is an Ontario car. I’ve also seen it in person a couple of times.
Based on the sign in the background, the picture in the article was taken at the Fleetwood Country Cruize In car show, which is held in London, Ontario.
The welded in panel was used on the Austin A30 around the same time. http://gomotors.net/pics/Austin/austin-a30-01.jpg Here the four door came out first, followed by the two door a year or so later (1953). Charitably you could call it modular design.
Craziest is the Saab 92-96 series which inexplicably had the same thing, even though there was never a four-door model!
I’ve been irritating myself crazy on that throughout the years. I’m no expert on Saab, but it just have to do with the way the car was assembled. An ocular analysis of the body gives that the roof and sail panels including the rear side window frames were one continous pressing, actually very much like an inverted bathtub.
On the early 92, that went back as far away as down to the number plate, as it didn’t even have an opening for the boot. You can see on the pictures the clearly separate rear fender. And above that the bathtub pressing. With the door and the fender taken out, that leaves a vestigal rear door lower, that has to be filled with a separate pressing.
I guess it had to do something with the fender being pressed to fit the inner structure and wheel well, thus necessitating a separate pressing for the missing part. In the usual manner of the day, the panel gap wasn’t welded, but filled with some sort of rubber seam. In case of a respray, all those rubber seams had to be separated and attached after painting, or there would build up cracks and rust under the rubber seam.
On the later 96, there’s a separate pressing for the boot, and also, the roof seems to have been separated from the sail panels, hidden by that drip rail and vent. But it has irritated me no end throughout the years that they kept that panel that looked like a vestigal door though it actually wasn’t, until production ended in Nineteen Freakin’ Eighty! Yes, you heard it right, last year of 96 production was 1980.
http://www.carfolio.com/images/dbimages/zgas/models/id/21608/saab%2092%20rear.jpg
http://saabmuseum.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/saab94V4RR-600×400.jpg
Love that last pic – I would SO drive that car!
It doesn’t quite pull off that “Yeah, I’m hip!”-vibe now, does it?
Didn’t Kaiser do pretty much the same thing when they built their coupes ?
Yes, Bernard, it was. It’s funny that as I read about that strange little scoop, I realized I had seen it before. It was on my own 1957 A-35 coupe (recently sold). Too bad we can’t interview anyone who worked on these designs to find out why they did it. Has anyone ever looked inside a Stude or Austin shell to see if there’s a weld? On the Austin, I rationalized that it might be a rain channel for the car when stationary(!) as it flows directly from the roof gutter. Or, I thought, would Austin have believed that customers might like a 2 door to ape a 4 door because it projected an air of staid bourgeoise success?
And to the point of the exposed B-pillar on Loewy Studebakers, of all the characteristics that should never have been incorporated in the original design, that one is king. It seems so antithetical to the Loewy design philosophy to pen something so clunky. Could it have been overstated purposefully so company execs who worried that the coupe design was too racy for volume sales would have a version that screamed “sedan”? That’s an extra door gap to worry about in the production line! Or was it necessary because the frame was notoriously flexible? It’s amazing that it took over 10 years to rectify such a glaring flaw.
Exposed B pillars were still fairly common back then. A ’57 Chevy sedan has a fully exposed B pillar too. Even the ’57 Chevy 4 door hardtop still had a thin panel between the front and rear doors.
They were still used on some imports well into the ’60s – the Panhard 17 (1965) had a huge exposed B pillar, left over from a 1954 design.
Thank you for this analysis, even if it is 50 years late 🙂 I tried to figure it all out in real time as a kid, and struggled with it mightily. Well, I suppose I had it figured out essentially, as it was all rather obvious, but I did miss some details like the two ’55 windshields.
The Lark didn’t fool me one bit, and it is surprising how well folks took to that. I guess they were really desperate for an American compact. I get its charms, but its styling was obviously a hodge-podge of the good, the bad and the ugly.
I’m not sure which of the sins of keeping old styling elements around forever was the worst, but that dreadful exposed B-Pillar always really rubbed me the wrong way. How hard could it be to cover that up with the rear door?? Unbelievable.
Studebaker during this whole era reminds me of the dying gasps of desperation of some obscure British maker; it’s just so…un-American. 🙂
Yes, as kids we called them all “Stupidbakers” (except for the Avanti, of course). We knew they couldn’t compete against GM and such, just by watching this parade of charades unfold year-by-year. Thanks for putting it into perspective.
I guess that I was fortunate that my Stude-neighbors picked probably the very best (or least-compromised) of the whole lot – a 60 Lark VIII, a 64 Avanti and a couple of regular 64s. Had their driveway featured a 58 Scotsman and a 62 Lark, I might not have become such a fan.
That 62 is the worst of the lot to me – it looks like a broken down, swaybacked horse, and with none of the charms of the earlier cars.
As a fellow auto-archeologist, I enjoyed this write up very much! I’ve admired how Studebaker held onto their last decade and saw these incremental changes, but never sat down to put it all together with photos. I am very glad you did that!
While we can all see what a fine car Studebaker was today, rarely was the brand high on the list of auto shoppers during any model year. We can admire the 1964 Studebaker, but would we really have selected it over the other 1964 competition? Would we have really been satisfied with the dealership, the drivetrain, the styling and not fallen for the newest offerings from GM, Ford, Chrysler, Rambler or buy a Beetle?
I believe the Market was very fair to Studebaker during its last decade of life. That 1959 Lark was indeed a worthy alternative to the Big Three and a Half the year it appeared. The Lark was a refreshing change and a better car than was offered by the other brands that year in many respects. When we see the sales charts between 1953-1963, we see that Studebaker’s demise was not due to it being overlooked by the Market.
It seems that there were some insiders hoping that there could have been a savior for Studebaker in Mercedes Benz. Yet, Studebaker’s assets in the auto business were completely worn out by the time they connected with the Germans. Rebuilding South Bend into a late Twentieth Century production facility would have been monumental, even for them. Studebaker really did seem to have lived off of fumes during that last decade, and there really wasn’t much life in that old auto company by the time JFK was elected president.
Thanks for the cool write up and the great presentation.
We can admire the 1964 Studebaker, but would we really have selected it over the other 1964 competition?
I’ll put it this way: my parents had a 36 Dictator, 48 Champion, 51 Champion, 56 Commander, 59 Lark and 60 Lark.
From there, mom got a 64 Rambler and dad got a 64 Galaxie. In 64, the hard core Studebaker family said “no more”
The execution of the dip in the molding on the ’62 does make it look broken. Similar to some of the criticisms of the Alfa 75/Milano, which has been said to look as if it had been broken in half and then put back together crooked due to a pronounced kick-up in the bodyside molding on the rear quarters.
Or did the stylists at Studebaker see what Rootes did with loewys design, looks to me they simply built an American Audax Hillman Minx and subsequent SuperMinx going by the greenhouse , I prefer Rootes interpretation but then I drive one, or did Rootes just scale down a Stude?
There’s some discussion of this in the book ‘Tiger, Alpine, Rapier’ by Richard Langworth. As Loewy was involved with both it’s not too surprising that some of the subsequent revisions to both ranges were similar.
The green 1962 Lark’s rear window styling is reminiscent of the 1963 Series V Minx too.
I remember the billboards that advertised the restyled 1964s for a brief time in late 1963…they showed a 3/4 front view of the car and were simply lettered:
“Beautiful New ’64 Studebaker”
A four page LIFE Magazine advertisement for the 1964 Studebaker can be seen at:
http://tinyurl.com/BeautifulNew64Studebaker
Ah, I knew I’d seen one before. Matchbox!
http://www.fcarnahan.com/img/r2i/rw42b2.jpg
That Matchbox Wagonaire was one of my favourites!
My first car was a 47 Stude. I don’t think chev or ford made anything that looked as good from 53 on. Apologies in advance for big fans of tri five chevs or Edsels.
They were early with the ohv v8 engines and to my way of thinking they were very innovative. Almost pulled the trigger on a 48 stude truck a decade ago but good sense got the best of me.
Excellent article that is very well researched.
Knit-picking here, but I think the two-door Studes kept the shorter 109′ inch wheelbase right up to the very end.
Otherwise a beautiful write-up.
Hmmm, I’ll have to look into this. I went through this process several times, then looking something up and finding that I needed to revise the piece yet again. The three separate part numbers for windshields (55-58, 59-60 and 61-62) really surprised me.
Yes on the 109″ wheelbase for two-doors.
What’s interesting in analyzing these two proportional images is that the whole roof structure is also a bit shorter, in other words, a genuine coupe.
So how does the different side treatment on this ’66 2-door fit into your analysis? That downward sweep on the side door and below the rear side window is not on the 4 door
Presumably they kept the 1963 2-door panel through to the end (and spent the money on the Wagonaire instead?)
Something else I never noticed. This goes for the 63 as well. If I had to guess, I would say that they used the same tooling for the 62 2 door quarter panel in 63 and 64-66 to save money. Probably the door skin too. There was no exposed B pillar to hide on the 2 doors, so they probably just left them alone.
Being the money situation was so tight at Studebaker, it still baffles me that the 63 Roof & windshield was redone yet again in 64 except on wagons & the convertible. Why the 64 version wasn’t done just once in 63 will remain a mystery. They did this other times too as was pointed out for the 58 hardtop roof which may have looked out of proportion on a Lark in 59 but would have looked great on the Hawk. Even so, I have been a fan since 1960 & presently have at least one of every year from 59-66, some years (like 2 62’s & 3 63’s) duplicated.
The sad thing, there was once some plans for a 1967 Studebaker
http://deansgarage.com/2009/bob-marcks-designer-at-studebaker-ford-and-chrysler/
http://www.rokemneedlearts.com/carsindepth/wordpressblog/?p=5632
There was one mysterious exception to the unchanged greenhouse during these years – the attractive single year hardtop roof of 1958.
I don’t think I have ever seen that roof profile before. Very much of a 58 Chrysler look to it. Sure makes you ask “why?” Maybe on the Hawk., though the Hawk didn’t look bad with the 53 roof. The Thunderbird roof Stevens pasted on the GT Hawk just never looked right to me.
The story is they basically cribbed it from a ’57 DeSoto or Chrysler. Apparently not an urban legend. I suspect they rolled it out because the Golden Hawk wasn’t selling as well, and they needed a viable hardtop. Heck, they saved a ton on design fees.
I’m rather ashamed to admit that I’ve never really paid much attention to Studebaker, and therefore have very little knowledge on them.
That said, I’ve now been nicely filled in on Studebaker’s basic history from 1953-1964. I think it’s safe to say you’ve sparked a new interest for me in Studebaker. Thanks JP!
Notice how the body panels behind the doors and ahead of the rear fenders appear to be vestigial doors, welded into place.
Never noticed that either. Seems like the two door Studies I have seen had shorter rear windows, indicating a longer front door.
An even more bizzare look is on the 50 Kaiser Traveler. To maximize cargo space, the spare tire was moved to just inside the left rear door. The door was welded shut. From the outside, the car looks like it has a door there. The handle is in place and there is a gap between the door panel and the frame, as though the door opened. I had a really close look at one at the museum in Ypsi yesterday.
In the pic found on the net, you can see the spare tire in the back seat interior pic
Surely it would have been easier to leave the door opening, for access to the spare, rather than to change?
This arrangement is similar to some 1949-era Ford ambulance conversions done in Australia I have seen pictures of, with room for one stretcher and a nurse to sit in the rear seat.
Studie had one last trick up it’s sleeve, a new grill for 66.
Also, the South Bend engine plant was kept open for the 64 model year, but the Canadian built 65-66 models had Chevy drivetrains. Reading 65-66 roadtests shows repeated comments along the lines of “the new engines are a huge improvement, much better handling due to their lighter weight”
Either 63 or 64 a Studebaker was on front grid position for the annual Bathurst motor race Grid was decided on engine displacement rather than lap times, but Victorian Police used studes as patrol cars so they must have had some sort of a turn of speed.
Victorian Police used studes as patrol cars so they must have had some sort of a turn of speed.
A Paxton supercharger on the 289 V8 was a factory option in 63-64. Those cars went entirely out of proportion to their looks.
There were a couple larks on the Dodge City PD. One gave m y 53 Ford a ticket for loud pipes. The cop ended up being part of my extended family. I was probably less friendly to him than the rest of my family but that’s life.
Well they were not bad against the 4 & 6-cyl cars of the time, achieving three second places in 1961-62. In the 1961 Armstrong 500 at Phillip Island they were beaten by a Mercedes 220SE, in 1962 by a 170ci Ford Falcon.
In 1963 the Studes were the only V8 cars in the Armstrong 500 at Bathurst and were timed at 114 mph down Conrod Straight but were 2-3 sec a lap slower than the Holden S4 3:28 and Cortina GTs 3:29. The Holden did 105 mph and the Cortinas 104. That is from practice too, so no worries of cooking brakes etc as happened in the race where they finished 15 laps down.
For 1964 they had a 280hp Granatelli R4 engine, disc brakes and came fourth, two laps down from the winning Cortina GT. Top speed was now allegedly nearly 150 mph (I’m not sure I can believe that given that 7 years later the 380hp Falcon GTHO’s were doing 154 mph).
They raced for four more years, finishing just outside the top 10 in three of those, 6-10 laps down. There are photos of the cars & more detail at:
http://www.studebakercarclubnsw.com/heritage07.html
…and now we know where Opel got the nose treatment on the Ascona A from. Nearly identical except the Ascona doesn’t have the horizontal divider in the middle of the grille…
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.
Another unbelieveable sore thumb, was the exposed end of the firewall that Studies featured through 52
not only that, but the coupe lived on to become the 70 1/2 Camaro. 🙂
Great piece. Except for the neighbor that had an early ’60s Lark sedan until a ’71 Vega took its place, Studebaker didn’t exist in my world. From 50+ years out, they had some attractive cars, and some cars with attractive elements. But, many were behind their competition for their times.
I’m aware of the tack on fins and nacelles, but if you squint a little, I think Studebaker did 1958 as well or better than a lot of ’58 cars.
Interesting re-write of history question: What if the ’57 Studebaker and an updated Hawk became the Packard, and a full line of Larks was introduced two years earlier as the new line of Studebakers? It would have been an interesting shot at the future.
It’s not that the styling of the 1956-58 Studebakers is all that bad, especially compared to wacky things like the 1958 Oldsmobile, it’s that it was really almost a mid-sized car trying to masquerade as a full sized car while its competition got bigger and more-important looking. The Stude’s modest width gave it away — kind of like the stretched K-cars about three decades later.
What a wonderful story, so well-written and illustrated! That last pic really struck me as I noticed for the first time that the ’53s and the ’64s shared pretty much the same A-pillar rake and what looks like the same windshield. So Studebaker came back to their original design after a nearly a decade detour thru the wrapped windshield nonsense from the 50s.
My father was cheap, er, “frugal”, and for several years after my mom and him married he’d buy used police cars and taxi’s. And so it was the very first car I ever rode in was one of those Econ-O-Miler taxi’s, a 1960 model, that he picked up from some auction.
Wow, great analysis. Tracking these continual and sometimes minute changes must have been interesting (and frustrating) to writeup. That 58 hardtop roofline is definitely a ‘Where did that go and why did it go?’ conundrum. Loved it.
Everybody sing along!
Stude-A-Roni, the Indiana treat! Ding ding! 🙂
That was a great read. The 50’s Studebaker’s were really good looking cars. They got a little less attractive in some of the 60’s restyles. The 55 1/2 windshield and A piller change was pretty bizarre. Radical mid year change, yet needs to be pointed out to notice. I got to thinking about long running basic body styles, and realized my 2004 Titan is almost the same as the 2014. This was not intended, Nissan was going to rebadge Ram trucks but the deal fell through when Chrysler was sold to Fiat. The other day I was looking at the Jetta MK2’s long run. It went from 1984 in Germany until 2012 in China. It got a new front end and rear lamps in 2010, but the A to C pillars, doors and glass are the same. A 28 year run in total. Makes the Studebaker’s 13 year run look short. Of course there was the Checker, VW Beetle, Model T, etc. Really enjoyed this write up, interesting read and great pictures. Every time my Grandfather would see a Studebaker he called them ‘Manure Spreaders’. I think Studebaker used to make them for farms back in the 50’s. Mom owned one in the 50’s and always used to say years later what a great car it was.
As far as a body going many years may I add the Jeep Wagoneer from the early 60’s to the mid 90’s just about every body panel remained the same, only grille & trim differences were made.
Brilliant article JP! Perfect use of pictures to tell a story, and I learned a lot!
Didn’t notice how many annual changes there were…
Thanks for this great year-by-year look at the last years of Studebaker. I think I’m going to have to correct the model years in some of my photos taken in the last several years!
My great uncle liked Studebakers. i remember he had a red ’63 4-door model and insisted on shifting for himself (no auto trannies for him)! When it was time for a new car and Studebaker had gone out of business, he bought an early 70s VW Squareback, which I believe also was red.
It took me a while to spot the differences between the windshields in those ’55 brochures. I think I was too blinded by the chrome on those excessive front bumpers. Was there ever a less-attractive update of a bumper in the history of chrome? I do kind of like that ’61 Lark Cruiser. Save for what appears to be an even wider B-pillar, it looks less like two giant hands took a car and smooshed it in at the front, middle and rear end, which is what those other early Larks look like to me. Thanks, JP, very nice, detailed analysis here.
The CC effect again. 🙂
I had never noticed that seam on the 2 doors until this ’54 showed up at a local cruise 2 weeks ago. Given the “hot rod in progress” nature of this example, I wasn’t actually sure it came that way from the factory.
Thanks for the pic, though it adds another question. Hard to tell by eyeball, but the front door looks a bit longer, and the rear side window a bit smaller than on a 4 door. Most interestingly, I don’t see the exposed B pillar on the 2 door, which I would have expected to show if they had just welded the back door shut.
So did they move the B pillar aft on the 2 doors and make a longer front door, then make a shorter rear door stamping and just lap it over the B pillar? All that work, then not fill the seam to make it look smooth?
54 2 door side view. Is that front door longer and back window smaller than the 4 door?
Both the tan one and the green one are supposed to be Champs.
I was thinking that, as the Land Cruiser was on a longer wheelbase, it might have had a longer front door, that they then used on the 2 door Champ, leaving the shorter rear opening
Nope, front door doesn’t look longer. Back door does look longer.
The relationship- or lack of it between the side windows and the door shut lines kills the whole thing for me.
That and the exposed B pillar. A stubby body shape needs less vertical lines, not more.
Those sixties Studes were quite popular in Australia. In my area (Melbourne) they were probably the commonest American car in the early sixties, aside from ’62-on Fairlanes – everything else (except Rambler) being so much larger and thus not really suitable for our narrower roads, smaller parking spaces and expensive gas. I would never have realised the degree of commonality between these and the ’53s at the time, and your feature shows more intermediate steps than I knew existed.
Even the local police ran Daytonas as pursuit cars. Then Stude just disappeared – sad.
Superb analysis, thank you so much for this excellent piece.
In any other market, Studebaker would have just kept the 53 as was for a few years and then made a new car in the late 50s. US-style yearly changes were too expensive (even minor ones) for any manufacturer selling fewer than 150 000 cars a year after the war. But hey, when in Rome… So Studebaker added fins, took them off again, a dab of chrome here, a new side-molding there, etc. Death by a thousand facelifts.
How was Stevens influenced by Frua though? When you look at this 61 Lark designed by Frua, especially the side, and the 64 production Lark (the better-looking one IMHO), there is more than just a small likeness, seems to me.
Interesting car. Almost like the Simca Roger recently wrote up.
Yes, it has that Italian je-ne-sais-quoi… Maserati Quattroporte looks pretty similar too, obviously (also designed by P. Frua).
The 1960 Lark coupe is interesting too, though the front styling isn’t my cuppa. No idea if these were presented to Studebaker or whether they still exist.
I’m iffy on some of Frua’s stuff, but I like this coupe and don’t mind the sedan. Grille treatment leaves a lot to be desired.
I like the image of the red-sweater dweeb showing his suited neighbor his new Lark.
“…And it’s got plenty of pep, and our trash bags full of G&H Green Stamps fit in back real swell!”
“Well, glad you’re happy, you always were a cheap bastard, Lou.”
Interesting article – the hubcaps on the second car pictured at the top of the article looks like the type that appeared on a late ’60s Toyota Crown – in fact the car on the whole reminds me of either the Crown or the Nissan Cedric – did they get some inspiration from Studebaker?
The ’53 Land Cruiser actually doesn’t look too bad. Pretty fresh and with an available V-8 and automatic, neither of which you could get on that years Plymouth. Also, Chevy had no V-8 until ’55 and Ford only had the old Flathead until ’54.
Unfortunately things got worse. The stubby Lark destroyed whatever style this car had and the only ’64 Cruiser I’ve ever seen was the one driven by Wilbur Post in the old Mr. Ed TV show, which was sponsored by Studebaker.
There is a clip on Youtube of a segment where Mr. Ed (the horse) was driving an old delivery van. The street scenes had more Studebakers in them than anywhere outside of South Bend.
Jeeze ;
I was expecting you to include a link ~ I remember watching that episode on the B & W 13 ” T.V. when it was new…..
-Nate
“The ’53 Land Cruiser actually doesn’t look too bad. Pretty fresh and with an available V-8 and automatic, neither of which you could get on that years Plymouth. Also, Chevy had no V-8 until ’55 and Ford only had the old Flathead until ’54.”
Sounds good until you realize that Studebaker was competing against Oldsmobile and Buick.
Well, here are the 1953 stats:
Stude Land Cruiser, 116.5″ w.b., $1,927
Buick Special, 121.5″ w.b., $2,064
Olds 88, 120″ w.b., $2,126
Chevy BelAir, 115″ w.b., $1,720
Looks like it was priced and sized somewhere between the Chevy and Olds/Buick. In any event, it couldn’t compete with either.
The 1953 Land Cruiser was on a 120.5 wheelbase. Steve’s picture above shows that it was noticeably longer than the Champion.
My uncle was intrigued by the practicality of the opening roof on the 1964 Studebaker wagon, and ordered one as soon as they were in the showroom.
Of course being a special order, he’d have to wait. In the interim the South Bend plant shut down and his car eventually came from Canada. I got to see it all of ONCE because he traded it before the model year was even out.
The only thing I remember about it is that it had a nice ride which as we all know, is not enough.
It wasn’t just the water leaks and rattles at that wagon roof, or the numerous other reminders of poor workmanship that disillusioned him; it was the car’s poor handling on the road. For all that Studebaker spent, or didn’t, on the sheet metal, they must have spent flat nothing on the chassis to bring it to contemporary standards. He says it didn’t handle like the sedan he tried at the dealer before ordering (they didn’t have a wagon); I wonder if Studebaker softened the suspension after the first production cars? In any case he was much more satisfied with the 1964 Ford he traded it for. Even with the big 390 engine up front, it far outhandled the Studebaker.
I wonder if he’d have felt differently about the Stude, had it a lighter-weight engine up front, as in the 1965 Chevybaker (Studelet?).
That was one great write-up, JP!
The pix of the 1962 Lark really brings back memories for me. Imagine the same car, but in silver with a white/gray interior. That would be my great-uncle’s (my father’s uncle) car. It was bought new the same year I was born. Uncle Joe died in 1970, and willed us a lot of his property as we were his only real ‘descendants’. He and Aunt Polly were childless.
My oldest brother who was 16 that year was offered the Stude; he had zero interest in it. Times being what they were, he was more interested in a VW Bug or a Triumph TR6, something that didn’t exude “old man” all over it. My other brother and I were far too young to drive, so my father sold off the car.
If I could get it back now, that would be fantastic. Alas, I’m sure it’s long gone and we only have an “incidental” photo (accidentally in frame) or two of the car and my memory. Ah well.
Wow, what a great write-up! I really enjoy seeing the yearly changes in back-to-back shots like this; it really drives home how little of the final cars were direct carryovers from the original ’53 body but how much of the general shape did carry over. It was all-new, but it wasn’t at all new. Fascinating and well done!
Very interesting read JP! I wonder if the same level of change could be applied to the Valiant/Dart, I’d think they would have a similar timespan and change.
I’d imagine it would have been a brave decision to hold the sheetmetal changes so that the car could be ‘all-new’ every second or third year, and more dramatically changed, rather than continually being regarded as re-hashed leftovers. Or even put more of the budget into the carry-over mechanical/chassis/etc components that drew such criticism rather than the new 1961 short wheelbase roofline that would be gone in 1962.
There’s some Larks racing here, the drum brakes were the weakest link.
An interesting aside: Look at these wheel covers:
Now look at these:
I wonder if Checker stamped them for Studebaker, it would explain why they decided to use them on Marathons apparently starting in the 1967 model year.
Studebaker may have sold the dies as well. The wheelcovers on the 64 standard Studebaker were recycled onto the 69-71 Travelall.
Other than the Frua attempts and Studebaker’s own Sceptre designs, there was also the linked (https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2945/15400267585_72e9ba2123_o.jpg) prototype by Kaiser-Ilyn in Israel who assembled the Lark in Haifa. Faced with no more CKD kits in 1967, it considered soldiering on alone. However, by that time it was too in financial straights and eventually was bought by another Israeli car manufacturer, so that nothing came out of that. The car unfortunately did not survive – I have never seen any side or 3/4 photos so I have no idea what it looked like from those angles. Someone must have seen a BMW 2000CS…
Managed to upload it
Stevens was masterful at reshaping the old design, but he made one mistake with the ’64: the mirrored upsweeps curving around the wheel arches. They belong on a dolly that goes in any direction, not on a car that goes forward.
I agree with you on those upswept lines over the rear wheel arches on the 64. Unfortunately, I believe that the quarter panel (which was a bolt-on fender on Studes) was the same one used in 1962 and 63. Stevens very cleverly disguised it with the new taillight caps, but I think that he was stuck with it for budget reasons. But I never really understood that line on the 62 or 63 either.
The upswept contour behind the rear wheel arch is there to match the upswept chrome trim above it on the ’62s, a look I never liked as it made it look like the whole car got bent upwards from about the back door handles on rearward. The front two-thirds of the car was locked in place since ’59, which in turn was largely in place since the beginning in ’53. In 1963, the greenhouse was redesigned with new door skins and a straighter beltline, but the ’62 rear fenders were retained to save money. The exception is the wagon, because the new-for-’63 Wagonaire had all-new rear sheetmetal and a longer window, and that’s why the contour above and behind the rear wheel on the Wagonaire is horizontal and more restrained than that on the ’62-’66 sedans. The ’64s got a new, longer front end to complete the facelift that Brooks Stevens started in ’62, along with a new squared-off trunk lid, another new roofline and rear window, and a rear cap that covered the round taillight openings with new, straighter-edged lights that looked like a larger version of those on a Chevy II from that period. But the rear fenders on the non-wagons still had that upsweep from the ’62 model.
Before the South Bend factory closed, Stevens had designed a proposed ’65 facelift (pic below) that kept most of the car as is, but with a slightly restyled rear fender that would apply the wagon’s look to the sedan. It’s subtle, but notice in this photo the contour is now truly horizontal and not as prominent, and the contour below it gone completely for a smoother appearance. While he was at it, the need for an end cap for the taillights was eliminated (I think the trunk lid is new as well). This rendition has the full-width taillights Stevens also used on the ’62 Sceptre prototype, a Hawk replacement that never came close to reaching production. It appears though that the ’64 backup lights were recycled for the new design.
With those changes in place, Studebaker finally had a design that could last another decade and still look fresh with only the slightest of tinkering. Buyers in this segment just didn’t care about up-to-the-minute styling. Look at Rambler sales in the late ’50s and early ’60s when they had aging designs, or how the Dart/Valiant sold well right up to the end in 1976 even though they looked very much like the mid-’60s design they were. The Maverick looked seriously dated by its last year of 1977 too – more so than the ’65 Lark proposal would have, or even the actual ’66 Stude that did get built. With simple, attractive, relatively timeless styling in place, Studebaker should have laid off the annual facelifts from ’65 on and spent their funds developing a modern six-cylinder engine, a reshaped frame that allowed for recessed footwells, better rustproofing, and built-in air conditioning that didn’t look like an aftermarket unit (something else the Dart/Valiant still didn’t have in 1976). And oh yeah, also updating the factory.
This photo is from a feature in Special-Interest Autos, Sept=Oct. ’71 which tells of some insiders’ stories from the Lark era. The usual lore is that the company used the 1959 profits only to divest into non-automotive businesses, but the success of the ’59 Lark did result in Harold Churchill getting approval and some cash to begin work on a more thoroughly redesigned Lark. He wanted a boxer four-cylinder (but still water-cooled) engine that would power *two* new small cars, one on a 100″ wheelbase and one on a 108″, both with all-new bodies on a variant of the existing platform. The smaller one would have shortened and redesigned front and rear sheetmetal and a slimmer C pillar. The projected cost of the new cars that had been commissioned with hopes they’d be ready by 1962 was $25 million. About $4 million had been spent on the project – the dies for some body parts were already in place – before the board of directors got a look, didn’t like what they saw (the prototypes weren’t well constructed), and Churchill was soon demoted and replaced by Sherwood Egbert who thought the market for tiny cars (by early-’60s U.S. standards) was too small to be profitable.
Given how cash-strapped the company was since the early ’50s, It’s amazing how much money went to waste on abandoned projects like this one. $4 million down the drain for a 4-cylinder subcompact? That’s more than the whole Avanti program cost. Let’s see – there was the collaboration with Porsche (three driveable prototypes built) that John DeLorean and others struck down, the all-new ’57s with a shared Studebaker/Packard platform and inner structure (one driveable prototype) that fell apart when they couldn’t find financing, the Brooks Stevens prototypes done in 1962 for an all-new Lark, Wagonaire, and Sceptre, and this flat-4 mini-Lark thing. Even after all those projects fell through, Lowey, Stevens and Bob Marcks were still busy designing future Studes mostly based on the Avanti or Lark for up to the 1970 model year.
Here’s my slight reworking of the ’64 to make it look a bit less tall. I removed the sweep from the front over the fender well, straightened out the one at back (a bit fussy in my rendition, I admit, where it parallels the crease above it, which was lowered, along with the door handles, about an inch), added a couple of inches of front overhang, removed the character line from in front of the rear bumper, and lengthened the bumper wings so the car looks less chopped off.
My Dad and I went to see a yellow and black ’53 coupe like the one at the top of the article once, back in the ’90s. It had the 6 cylinder engine and I was very disappointed in it’s performance. It drove like a lawn tractor. I seem to recall the pedals weren’t suspended, which was very late in the game for that style… one could see the ground through the slots in the floorboard.
…It drove like a lawn tractor. I seem to recall the pedals weren’t suspended, which was very late in the game for that style…
As I recall, the brake and clutch pedals in my Dad’s 60 Lark also went through the floor. That car, which was the base model, had a round cover on the floor in the driver’s footwell. I always wondered what that was. Asked a 60 Lark owner about the cover on the floor at a show a few years ago. It’s the master cylinder access. So there you have the state of the art in South Bend when JFK was elected, about the same as when Truman was elected, or FDR for that matter.
And the 60 Lark still had the flathead 6 that dated to 1939 in it too.
In 1961, Studebaker eliminated the through the floor brake and clutch pedal in the Lark series. However, 1961 Hawks and later 1962-64 Gran Turismo Hawks kept this set-up. This really showcased the out-of-date 1950’s engineering of these cars.
I could have lived with that as I really love the GT Hawks, but Studebaker insisted on installing the ugliest, most agriculture and unaesthetically pleasing style brake and clutch pedal pads in these cars. Furthermore, in most of these cars with a manual transmission, the clutch and or brake pedals are often bent at an angle and don’t line up with each other which further gives these car’s interior a bad look. Compare these cars to a same year Thunderbird, Grand Prix, Riviera, or other personal luxury car and it’s easy to see why buyers went elsewhere.
This coupled with an ugly hang-on, underdash air conditioning unit and a lack of available options such as power windows, power seat, tilt wheel, cruise control…..
I agree with you Bill except for the pedals. On Studebakers the pedal pads were a separate bolt on item so if the ones you saw were misaligned, it could be easy to fix with a 9/16ths wrench. When they got worn out you could just replace the pad whereas others would require replacing the entire pedal arm.
I have a 66 Cruiser & yes, the a/c unit hanging on the bottom of the dash was severely dated to an otherwise nice style. The power windows went away (except on the Avanti) after 58, which would have fit more to the “luxury” image proposed in the Cruiser from 61 on.
Studebaker of Canada would have changed that too high look in 67 by raising the rear bumper to right below the taillights, and hinging the bumper for the plate. The 53/54’s did have that welded section but was covered by chrome on most models. Yes, the Lark had the 53 greenhouse on the 4 door models, but the line sold well because it was really attractive. Even today, especially the 2 door hardtop has a real appeal to it. The way Studebaker handled its finances is amazing, they could be the Apple of today. If they had gotten past public resistance. If Toyota, and Saab, all of the Japanese auto industry could do it, eventually so could have Studebaker. I think they would be in Volvo territory today, Packard in high Jaguar territory, held in higher esteem than Cadillac, or nearly dead Lincoln.
Great post, missed it the first time.
Interesting, to me, was the lack of a mention of the Studebaker-Packard/Mercedes-Benz distribution relationship from 1957 to 1963, when S-P distributed Mercedes-Benz automobiles in the US (but not Canada). The parentage of many current M-B dealerships can be directly traced to dealers that were once S-P dealerships, a few dating back before WW2 (I’m working on a historical feature on this subject).
Certainly the 1962 Lark refresh shows the Mercedes-Benz influence, especially for the front grille. Park a 1962 Lark next to a Fintail Mercedes-Benz, you’ll find the overall packaging surprisingly similar (a trait the Lark shared with the much more modern, all-new 1963 AMC Classic and Ambassador introduced the following year.
An interesting and fascinating read on the Studebaker-Packard/Mercedes-Benz tie up can be found here.
http://johnstraub.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-mercedes-studebaker-connection.html
Here’s a photo of a typical Studebaker/Mercedes-Benz dealership (from the above feature).
My favourite years for Studebaker are 1953-55, 1956, the 1959-61 Lark, the 1964-66 years.
What a little reduction in the trim could have done for the ’62 by shortening the bright molding on the side….
I agree – that looks much better.
Embarrassing revelation: I just noticed something that escaped me when doing this article. On the 1958 model, we are so used to being mesmerized by what is there (quad headlights) that we miss what was newly missing: Those little rectangular vent doors in the front fenders. There in 1957, missing in 1958. Amendments are being made to the text.
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.