pictures from an old classified ad
As much as I am a fan of the original (and unmolested) ’55 Nomad, the ’57 is a bit over the top, especially when it’s been messed with like the one we saw this morning. But I do have a soft-spot for two-door wagons, especially with the type of sliding rear side windows as found on the Nomad and…the 1960 Lark. So given the choice between that Chevy Nomad and this Studebaker Nomad, there’s no contest.
I’m actually quite a fan of the early Larks. I rather fell in love with the black Regal hardtop coupe I shot and wrote up for our definitive CC on the subject of foreshortened Studebakers. And I spent a fair bit of time in them in my younger days. But the practicality of a wagon always speaks to me more seductively, and this two-door is a lot more visually appealing than the four-door. So this has become the object of my desire for the day.
The Lark wagon rode on the longer 113″ wheelbase and was almost ten inches longer overall (184.5″ vs. 175″) since it used the existing wagon body, which couldn’t really be shortened in the rear like the sedan. But 185″ was still quite compact, and it made for a surprisingly roomy wagon inside. Space efficiency; that’s my thing. And the Lark has it, unlike just about any other American wagon at the time, except maybe a used ’55 Chevy.
What’s a bit curious about the ’60 Lark 2-door wagon is that it got a bit of remodeling from the 1959 version, even though that was the Lark’s first year. The ’59 had these older-style rear side windows. Still nice, but not as nice.
Of course that station wagon body wasn’t exactly new for the Lark, as it had been in use since 1953, although the Lark did rate a flatter roof. That and a 3.5″ reduction in the wheelbase at the front made for that handy 113″ wheelbase for the Lark wagon ( the sedans, coupe and convertible sat on the shorter 108.5″ wb).
There was no four door Lark wagon in 1959, but in 1960, in addition to the remodeled 2-door wagon, a 4-door wagon also joined the flock.
But it was not directly based on the ’57-’58 four door wagon. The Lark 4-door wagon had all-new longer rear doors, which is a bit curious, actually. Why not re-use the rear doors from the older wagon?
Because they already had the longer rear doors for it in the 113″ wb 1959 Econ-O-Miler taxi, which also appeared in 1961 as the Cruiser (bottom). The rear doors of the ’60 four door wagon are obviously the same as on the Cruiser/taxi, except for the window frame, which came from the 1958 President sedan. But the critical tooling for the basic door and its opening could be shared, which was money in the bank, or at least smaller losses.
True to its VIII badge, this one has the husky 259 CID V8, another plus. The Studebaker V8 was physically as big and almost as heavy as a Cadillac V8, which affected the front-rear weight distribution negatively, but a wagon always weighs more in the back end than a sedan, so here’s another reason to love the wagon. With a three-speed manual with overdrive and the 195 hp four-barrel version, this could be a blast from the past. Or maybe slip in a vintage Cadillac V8 and create a Larkillac?
This shot is from a different ’60 Lark, but in case you forgot, this is what greeted one. I like its honest and clean simplicity, even if it is a bit old-school for 1960. But that rather just adds to the appeal.
Speaking of old school, so is the rear access, via a top-hinged window and fold-down tailgate. Just like the Nomad. But that’s rather charming too, until you conk your head on the upper half trying to extricate something from the forward portion of the cargo area.
Obviously, the Lark’s rear end is no competition to the Nomad’s, especially the gaudy and finny ’57.
But the ’58 Studebaker wagon will give it a run for its money.
More Lark Goodness at CC:
CC 1959 Lark VIII Regal Hardtop Coupe: Studebaker’s Last Hurrah PN
In my opinion the most attractive of the various Lark bodies.
Where the two door Studebaker wagon loses me is how the front door window drops a lot lower at the bottom edge than the rear quarter windows, and also hits the b-pillar on a downward slope. One loses the long, straight belt line that typically comes with a two door wagon. The four door Studebakers appear to have the belt line issue all resolved, but the two doors sure don’t. No doubt, this is what one gets with mix-and-match parts production on a limited budget, and working with what one has instead of what one would like to have. On a Studebaker, it is actually a bit quaint, in a way it would not be on most other cars.
Jeez. That ’58 needs to extend the cargo area back about 12-18″, now? They couldn’t have sold many of these…
You could hold a tailgate party with the tailgate closed.
It’s like they put the top half of a small car on the bottom half of a big car. There was a Packard version of this wagon too which looked even more ridiculous and pieced-together.
My parents owned one of these in the exact color of the top photo. I rode around it from infancy to age 8 when they traded it in. My only real memory that stands out is how the window/tailgate rattled badly.
Interesting. These were rare when new. I remember seeing a few of the 4-doors but never this 2-door. The flat rear of the Lark worked better than the previous rear quarters, which blocked the tailgate with hugely extended fins.
To my eyes the best of the Nomad genre was the first, the ’52 Ranch Wagon.
I always hated how Studebaker kept making the front end of the classic 1953 Loewy coupe worse with each passing year. But that red ’55 station wagon is still pretty cool.
The 1958 Lark always struck me as one of most odd looking cars of all time. The tailfins were literally bolted on and look like a frankenmonster on the short car.
Not a Lark yet in 1958, but a Studebaker. The quad headlight pods were also obviously stuck on over old fenders. And as the body got longer the narrowness from 1953, which was already narrow then, and height because of the old frame not allowing foot wells became more apparent. The old wagon body with the useless shelf to extend back to the bumper between the fake fins all added up to an obviously cheaply contrived Frankencar. It’s amazing that they sold a single one.
Another archaic element that lasted into the first Lark years was the body strip between the front and rear doors. On other cars it was gone, or still on the window frames but not the doors. The whole car looked like a lot of random bits stuck together, and it was.
The tail fins on the ’58 Studebakers were also fiberglass bolt-ons just like the headlight pods, but they were much better disguised. The chrome strips on both the inside and outside of the fin were necessary to hide the seams.
That’s actually a Commander Provincial; Lark production began in 1959.
But the point is well taken. Studebaker’s desperation from the fifties forward to be new and fresh each year with an almost non-existant budget resulted in what can only be described as styling by JC Whitney. They, quite literally, were just bolting stuff (like quad headlight pods and tailfins) onto existing body panels.
I think the harshness of these comments are the height of “hindsight”. As the designer Duncan McCray said, the 58 pod dual lights were an attempt at something new looking. Dual headlights were new for EVERYONE. As to the fins, give Studebaker-Packard a break. So what if the fins are bolt on, Dodge did it too from 57-59. No on rags on those cars, it is the execution of how SPC did those design elements on a narrow car attempting to make them seem as low and long as possible that fails. And, frankly in that they came very close to looking like a Chrysler design. In person the cars are actually quite large and low and long. The Packard suffered the most. Had they simply had vertical stacked headlights and straight up shorter fins, rather than canted, those cars would have beem some of their most attractive ever.
“…They were looking ahead, to 1961, when the 113″ Lark Cruiser and long-wheelbase HD sedan (taxi) would arrive to extend the Lark line further…”
The ’59 taxi brochure indicates that the Econ-O-Miler was on the 113″ WB from the start.
I forgot that the Econ-O-Miler already came out in ’59. I will amend the text.
A CC on a ’59-’60 Econ-O-Miler would be great, except that to date, none appear to survive…
Not surprisingly.
There was an Econ-O-miler in 1958 as well. It looked rather like a Scotsman except for the long wheelbase from the President Classic.
Weird capitalization on the model name – it’s not an Econ-O-Miler or Econ-o-miler; it’s an Econ-O-miler.
Always impresses me how well the Lark came together.
When they lengthened the rear in 56, they didn’t lengthen the wagon greenouse, resulting in the shelf between the bottom of the tailgate and the bumper. But it all came together in the Lark.
Love to sit down with Churchill one day and have a detailed talk, because there are so many things the company did that I don’t understand. Why did they set up a separate line for wagons at Chippewa? I have seen drawings for what appears to be a modification of the wagon line for the Hawk, at Chippewa, as some parts of the line are marked “existing” while there is a bin marked “Packard engines”, indicating Hawks would be built there. I could almost understand the line for Hawks, due the differences vs the rest of the line, but for wagons? Of course, by 56, Chippewa went to C-W, so Hawks and wagons were all built at Plant 2.
Robert Bourke was the actual Industrial Designer who was primarily responsible for the design/styling of the 1953 car.
Here is a link, with a small note in passing, that does a nice job relating the history of the 1953 Studebaker design: http://www.joesherlock.com/53-Studebaker.html .
A retired Studebaker modeler/designer (Bob Doehler) that I got to know and had do some work for me at J.I. Case, did NOT have a high opinion of the self-promoting Loewy. I’ve had a couple of other automotive people from the time say similar things about Loewy. Everyone wants CREDIT for a winner; deserved or not. Human nature…….:(
At any rate, both the ’53 Studebaker and ’59 Lark were excellent design’s……done on a $hoestring budget compared to any Detroit car company. IMO, it was to bad that the looks of the Lark DEVOLVED over the years they were built. DFO
I am embarrassed to admit that I never noticed the difference between the 59 and 60 2 door wagons. But there it is, big as life. And now that I see it I far prefer the 60.
One other change from the 58 wagon was a new, much flatter roof stamping.
After the horrid 58 Interior, I always thought the 59-60 interiors were pretty nicely turned out when in the optional Regal trim. The padded dash with the stitching was a nice touch.
Odd how all the 1958 Studes (Hawk excepted) got the flatter roof except the wagon which had to wait until 1959. Did headroom take a big hit or were the seats lowered to compensate for the lower roof?
I never noticed the new sliding window either, but that’s probably there aren’t that many 1960 two-door wagons out there.
The station wagons are a study in the patchwork product planning taking place in South Bend at the time. The two door Conestoga was introduced in 1954, the second year of this body series. Although the Ford Ranch Wagon and the Plymouth Suburban were selling in significant numbers, the introduction of the four door Ford Country Sedan was rapidly gaining popularity, as well as their Chevy counterparts.
Studebaker based the Conestoga (D-Body) on the two door sedan (F-Body) on the 116.5 wb chassis, requiring only station wagon stampings for the quarter panels and roof shell, a few internal parts. This was all well and good until the market preference shifted to the four door station wagon, at which time Studebaker was odd man out and nearly bankrupt.
To build the ’57 four door wagons, they stayed with the 116.5 wb W-Body four door sedan basics but added the upper quarters mated to the holdover two door wagon top shell stamping because there wasn’t money enough to tool a proper longer roof shell. That’s why they ended up with a back ‘porch’ on those 1957-’58 wagons, emphasized by the longer quarter panels. Rear seat legroom and cargo area were not generous to say the least.
Come the precarious 1958 season, a real hand-to-mouth, month-to-month, touch-‘n-go survival struggle while the Lark was under development, a station wagon had to be included. Truncated as it was, only the two door wagon could be fit on a 113″ wb, which it shared with an equally truncated heretofore 120.5 wb Y-Body designated for the 1959 Econ-O-Miler taxi only. As bizarre as it appears now, this Y-Body would not be offered as a ‘civilian’ sale model until the 1961 Lark Cruiser.
With the sudden success of the 1959 Larks, plans to expand the model offering proceeded apace. A convertible (L-Body), based on the hardtop shell and a four door station wagon (P-Body). This time, they finally based it on the 113″ wb Y-Body sedan shell giving it the rear seat legroom so badly lacking in the W-Body based 1957-’58 four door wagons. But, this was just more patchwork, catching-up product development.
Once these Y-Body-based Cruiser and four door P-Body station wagon were in place for 1961, President Sherwood Egbert rationalized the all four door models onto these two shells for 1962, dropping the shorter 108’wb four door W-Body sedan and the two door station wagon. By then, two door wagon sales volume was only a few thousands. Like the other concurrent two door station wagons, it time was up.
The sliding side windows in the 1960-’61 were done to respond to customer complaints about the heat build-up and poor ventilation in the rear seat of the prior configuration,
Thanks for all the additional details. Care to become a contributor? You’re obviously well qualified. 🙂
It’s hard to see why Studebaker didn’t offer the 113″ Cruiser right from ’59. It would have rounded out the Lark line, and offered something for the more traditional Studebaker buyer. It’s seems kind of dumb not to, since they already had it in the Econo-O-Miler.
Would be glad to, though only on certain makes and spans of years. I haven’t a great deal of depth on recent decades or much on import makes. I’ll gladly leave that to others who do.
The lack of a ’59 Lark Cruiser is one of those Studebaker mysteries that defy logic. The initial product planning detailed in Robert Ebert’s book Champion of the Lark: Harold Churchill and the Presidency of Studebaker-Packard 1956-1961, that a 120.5″wb Y-Body sedan was to be continued for 1959 along with the Hawk since they share the chassis for the most part. The Y-Body models produced a fairly consistent 10% of all sedan/wagon sales, were the highest unit profit models. As the financial situation became more dire, it was dropped and the Hawk production was delayed into early 1959, almost didn’t make it at all.
These can be made into great hot rods. A noted designer (name escapes me and cannot read it on the image) came up with this one maybe 15 years ago, two tone paint and wheels date it however.
I can see Gumby driving that Stude! I think the color is “Gumby Green”.