Curtis Perry blacked out the background and windshields of this ’61 Lark he shot, and the result is rather fascinating. It accentuates the basic shape, contours and details of this rather unusually styled car. Like how much the roof slopes. And how big the wheels are. It’s both appealing and somewhat repulsive at the same time. The result being that it’s endearing, right?
Here’s the original shots:
Here’s the full story on how the Lark came to be.
The hood ornament is interesting. It’s a whimsical wooden (or 3dprinted?) sculpture of a pig. It appears to be bolted to the hood, not just accidentally laid there. The pig has the same proportions as the car.
Collectible Auto had an article on Del Coates, who worked at Studie when the Lark was designed. He said the decision to go compact was made because the ’53 body had always been too narrow for a big car. The front and rear overhangs were adjusted to match the width. Not very successfully.
…decision to go compact was made because the ’53 body had always been too narrow for a big car.
True. The interior width of a 53-57 “full size” Studebaker was roughly the same as a Rambler compact. Reportedly, the narrowness was the result of two factors: the paint booths and ovens in their obsolete body plant could not accommodate a wider body, and Lowey’s obsession with making everything lighter, and the easiest way to make a car light is to make it narrow.
A third factor was how small the Studebaker 6 was. When designing the 39 Champion, everything was designed to be light, including the engine, so the 6 was small to start, with little meat in it for displacement to be increased. By the mid 50s, the big three were installing 6s of 220-230cuin.
So, when you have the interior dimensions of a compact, and the engine of a compact, It’s an uphill battle to try and tell people it is a “full sized” car, even if it has a lot of extra sheetmetal hung on the ends to make it the length of a “full sized” car.
This pic shows a 53-55 Studebaker hardtop, next to a 55 Plymouth. It really shows how uncompetitively narrow Studies were by the mid 50s.
Looking through oldcarbrochures.com it looks like this model (Lark VIII) could have been ordered with a 4bbl V-8. Driving something like that would be a hoot!
The very wrapround screens front and rear make the remaining upper section look very small, which is a little unfair on the Lark. It’s actually quite sensibly proportioned.
The blacked out shot sure accentuates the reverse slant of the B pillars. I never noticed
how far they leaned back. Of course, it’s hard to see in most photos as everyone tends to take 3/4 view “beauty” shots.
I wonder who else used this design feature?
Countless cars over the years have had a reverse-slanted B-pillar, and it almost always puzzles me that this is considered a good design move. There are exceptions, but in general…yuck.
The 60 Lark had a reverse slant C pillar to compliment it, the B pillar looks more jarring on the 61 because nothing echos it.
As for whether or not it’s a good design move…
This was the first exception that occurred to me, too.
Zsa Zsa
Zsa Zsa Gabor: “I’m a marvelous housekeeper. Everytime I leave a man, I keep his house.” And she’s happy in a Studebaker? Maybe the wrong Gabor sister starred on “Green Acres”.
Notice how the door bounces back when she closes it at least twice during the commercial, as though the latch was removed for the filming…
Before I actually saw it, I was cringing. She does a good job.
However, I would have had her saying that it reminds her of her friend’s expensive European cars – the perfect size.
I have always found the 61 (and 62) models a little of a challenge to love. Both the 59-60 Lark and the 63-64 cars offered a nicer, more cohesive style. But 61 and 62 were making piecemeal changes that were just not that successful.
The 6.70×15 LT bias tires tell the story. Just keep it rolling without any more cash than absolutely necessary.
I was 14 when a friends aunt gave me 62 Lark 4 door. It had a thrown #1 rod at only 44,000 miles. Nevertheless It was a great learning tool for us kids. We tore the I
Engine out and in 5 times but We got it running …… for a while. We nearly demolished planet earth with that huge 169.6 cubic inch 6 haha!
Never quite understood the popularity of these Larks. They’re such stubby, dumpy looking machines. Compare the Lark profile with a ’58 Studebaker sedan. The ’58s were sleek and sharp by comparison. Both designs used the same ol’ 1953 doors and body, and this is particularly noticeable when seen up close. But somehow the ’59 Larks sold so much better. Why? Just because they’re SMALL?
Neither one is beautiful, and given they are basically identical under(and on) the skin, the Lark comes off as having no nonsense to it(like literally tacked on fins and quad headlights) and stylistically it fits in and holds its own rather well against the American, Falcon, Valiant and a Corvair in the early domestic compact segment, which is in stark contrast to the 58s among the big big three bulgemobiles. The narrow body and resulting odd proportions and over the top affectations make the 58s look like a generic unlicensed video game “50s car“
The wheelbase was always too long for that body. Even the short wheelbase Champion did not require a cutout for the rear door to clear the rear wheel. It was an unattractive and undersized “regular” car, but it was a right-sized (and quite roomy) compact, even if it wasn’t the most attractive thing on the road.
I will say that the nicer Regal trim on the Lark provided a really nice interior, as opposed to the 58 Stude which just looked cheap inside no matter what model you bought.
Even the short wheelbase Champion did not require a cutout for the rear door to clear the rear wheel.
It’s all a matter of perspective. After riding around in a 56 Commander for 8 years, I thought it was odd that mom’s new 64 Classic did have the rear doors cut out around the wheelwell. I remember noticing that at the Rambler dealer when she was looking at the car.
“But somehow the ’59 Larks sold so much better. Why? Just because they’re SMALL?“
Head over to Google Books, and take some time to read a number of “Owner’s Report” survey results from the 1957 through 1960 issues in Popular Mechanics. (WARNING: For an old car lover, this activity can turn into an addictive time-wasting rathole).
You’ll notice that a surprising number of people at the time were complaining about the excessive size and gaudiness of what were then referred to as “standard sized cars,” as well as poor workmanship. On top of that, the US was coming out of a recession when these were introduced, and two-car households were starting to become more common as more families moved to the suburbs.
Spotted on the street in Chicago, on a YouTube Metra ride-along
At 17:01.
Wow, good eye!
Hard to miss that pistachio pudding green!
A high school classmate of mine had a family who were into restoring old cars- pre 1940. Jim’s ride was a 1962 Studebaker Lark just like this one but in salmon. He paid next to nothing for it and got it running reliably enough to get it started on our very cold winter mornings and take him to school. Very cool car and to my eyes it has an almost European flair to it size notwithstanding. This was the fall of 1983, so the car was 21 years and it looked absolutely ancient. Much more ancient than if you rolled up today in a 99 MY something.