Around 2014 or 2015, I saw a 1958 Studebaker in gold and white parked at a local repair shop. At that time, I had not yet heard of Curbside Classic, and I didn’t get a smart phone with a camera until 2016. Ever since then I’ve been hoping that the Studebaker would return, so I could get some photos and maybe do a post on it. Never happened. So I did an online image search, and found what looks like the identical car (which it may or may not be). So we’ll use these photos as a “stand-in” for the car I actually saw. We’ll call it “The fish that got away.”
First I want to say that I really kind of like these ’58 Studebakers. I like the fins and the sleek over-all look, accented by the swooping crease over the rear wheels, and those headlight pods that shoot forward into the wind.
“Yeah, but the greenhouse is the same as the ’53 model!” That doesn’t bother me one bit. I think it looks good on this car. A lot of cars carried over tooling from previous model years (VW being the most notable example). In my mind, the designers at Studebaker-Packard did a fairly nice job keeping their products up-to-date (given what they had to work with and a very limited budget).
When I walked around this Studebaker, its gold paint and gleaming chrome sparkling in the sunlight, I thought it looked really rich and smart looking. I like this “smiling” front end. It looks eager–“ready to go!” In fact, I like Studebaker’s face better than that of its main competitor–the ’58 Chevy. The Studebaker smiles, the “Frankenstein” Chevy looks mean:
Of course, Studebaker gets a lot of criticism for its tacked-on headlight pods designed to accommodate double headlights, which were de rigueur in 1958. However, the stylists gave the pods a graceful teardrop shape, straight out of the late ’30s “streamlined-moderne” pattern book. S-P described them as “distinctive jet-type nacelles” which “stamp [this model] with the fine car elegance it merits.” A special piece of bright metal was created to form a continuation of the sleek side molding.
The ’57 Mercury (one of the first cars with “quad” headlights) used similar pods, and no one seems to complain about those. (Maybe because Mercury slathered more chrome on theirs!)
Seats on this top-of-the-line President look pretty lush:
However, the dashboard seems kind of plain, considering the era:
The “Flight-Style” instrument panel features a “Magna-Dial” rotating drum speedometer, similar to those found on some cars of the ’20s. Here it has been made futuristic by making it look like a 1950s TV screen. Switches are of the “modern aircraft type”. (Photo is of a lower-priced ’58 Champion).
The backup light pods remind me of the ’60 Mercury and Comet.
The Studebaker 289 cubic inch “Sweepstakes” V-8, 210 or 225 HP, depending on carburetor. That oil filter is so easy to get to!
I have this advertising insert from the December 8th, 1957 issue of the New York Times. Its 16 lavishly illustrated pages describe in detail all of the 1958 Studebaker-Packard offerings.
If you only read this booklet, it would never occur to you that S-P was in such bad shape in 1958. “THIRTEEN NEW STUDEBAKERS . . . FOUR NEW PACKARDS– FEATURE STYLING PLUS CRAFTSMANSHIP!”
The ad copy is nothing but exuberant confidence and optimism:
S-P seemed to cover the whole market, from bargain-basement economy (the Scotsman) through the various Studebaker lines (Champion, Commander, President), plus Packard (which now competed with lower-mediums like Pontiac, Dodge, Mercury, and Edsel.) There were the sporty Hawks (Studebaker and Packard versions) plus station wagons. Mercedes was priced at or above Cadillac/Lincoln/Imperial. It’s interesting to compare the lowest version of the basic body with the highest:
1958 Scotsman: $1784.
1958 Packard: $3212.
The title of this post is “The Last President” because it was. It was also the last Commander, the last Champion, and the last year for the Packard name on automobiles. Sadly, despite all the “happy-talk” from the S-P marketing department, Studebaker and Packard sales were well below expectations. 1956 was poor, 1957 was worse, and 1958 was unsustainable. Only 44,759 Studebakers and 2,622 Packards were made; this while Chevrolet and Ford each produced about a million cars the same year!
Since prospects were typically buying just one car for themselves, they would naturally select what they considered the best car in its price class. Studebaker was competing with Chevrolet (which was all-new and had a high-quality reputation); Ford (offering a heavily-revised version of its very successful car of 1957); and Plymouth (which had excellent riding and handling qualities and many admirers of its Forward Look wonders). Given the competition, Studebaker seemed not quite up to snuff. Any unique advantages Studebaker may have had didn’t mean much to most people. Plus, in 1958 the Horsepower Race was full-on, and all of the Big Three’s low-priced lines now had big, all-new high-compression V-8 engines available with well over 300 cubic inches, while Studebaker’s top V-8 had “only” 289. Automotive testers found the Studebaker driving experience mediocre compared to the Big Three leaders’.
Here’s what Consumer Reports had to say:
It turns out that Studebaker sold more cheap Scotsmans than expected. Given that, and the fact that the compact Rambler was booming–this lead to an idea: Take the basic Studebaker body, chop off the long hood and trunk, and voila–a new compact . . . the Lark! The scheme worked, and Studebaker sales rebounded for 1959 and ’60 to about 120,000 units per year! Well, you can’t argue with success, no matter how short lived it was.
While the ’58 Studebakers (and Packards) were finny, jazzy, and sharp, the new Larks were stubby, rounded, and dull. Quad headlights, considered so necessary in 1958, have been dropped. And the Larks were not “more car for the money,” but less. While the 1958 Studebaker price range (sans Scotsman) was about $2189 to $2695, the 1959 Larks ranged from $1925 to $2590–not much different from the full-size cars of ’58 (except for stripped Lark models at the bottom end).
But I suppose a Lark would appeal to someone who didn’t want a “big” car; maybe someone who lived in a narrow, congested area or only had a small garage or tight parking space to put a car. Or someone who was really concerned about gas mileage. Maybe some people thought it was cute/lovable.
S-P made a wise move with the Lark. Instead of being a little fish in a big pond (competing with the Big Three), be a big fish in a little pond (just competing with Rambler and a few imports).
Even so, I would take a ’58 Studebaker (and yes, even one of those “over-the-top” Packards) over a Lark any day. I think they’re nice looking cars–well made (better than average repair incidence, according to Consumer Reports); totally unique, with a lot of ’50s “swoosh”. The 289 V-8 is supposedly an excellent engine. The last full-sized Studebaker–I think that’s significant. But it’s been 7 years now–will I ever see one again?
Actually, as a kid I used to see one (a ’57 model, slightly different) on the 1970s TV show Chico and the Man. It was owned by Louie the garbageman (Scatman Crothers, at left). Louie regularly brought the Studebaker in to Ed’s garage for service, but only Louie had the “magic touch” and was able to start it! (It wouldn’t start for anyone else but Louie.) Ever have a car like that?
When my wife and I were house shopping back in 2005, we toured a house that had this exact car (down to the color) in the garage. I had met the owner at a gas station previously (he wasn’t home when we were touring the house) when I was filling up my Skylark, and he asked me if I used a lead substitute. Then, this car came up in our conversation, so I recognized it right away when I saw it; after all, how many ’58 Studebakers are running around any given town?
Like you, Stephen, I haven’t seen it since. I assume that the owner moved somewhere else, obviously, as he was selling his house (we didn’t buy it).
The Commander name was brought back on the low end model for 65-66. Overall the last big Studes were decent cars and pretty nice drivers. I wouldn’t hesitate to drive one daily today.
Although I always liked the ’56-’57 Stude sedans, one design element of these cars that I never understood was the decision to make the body center post visible. The added gap complicates the surface and was a reason Studebakers couldn’t stay current-looking as the ’50s waned, stuck with the thick B-pillar through 1963. They aren’t the only carmakers that did this, but they were certainly among the last. Are there any sources that quote Loewy’s reasoning? Was it for ease of production (the door just has to be centered in the jamb)? The ’47-’52 Stude 4-doors were even worse, with 5 panel gaps, including an extra one where the cowl separates door and fender.
Exposed B pillars were relatively common in 1953. Chevrolet used them until 1958, although they were less prominent than Studebaker’s. Why they didn’t feel to hide them before that, I don’t know.
Well, this was a great invitation to a rabbit hole. It looks like just about every 4 door sedan made that transition to a totally hidden B pillar, just at different times. GM did not get rid of it until 1959. Even the new B/C body of 1957 and the new A body for 1958 retained a very thin exposed part of that pillar.
It was there on the 57-58 Fords but gone on the 59. Chrysler eliminated it in 1957. And the morning’s big surprise is that it went away on the 1952 Nash Golden Airflyte. It being a work day, I had to pull out of that rabbit hole early, but this was something I had never thought about before.
I can’t find any discussion of this in Richard Langworth’s “Studebaker 1946-1966.” It does quote Bob Bourke, the Loewy employee who actually styled the 1953 coupes, as saying that Loewy’s contract with Studebaker expired in early 1955, after money ran out for all-new “Buick-like” tooling, and also for a second proposal for a substantial facelift with a “Mercedes-like” grille and more “aesthetic molding sweeps a la the Florentine lines of General Motors” (in the words of Studebaker-Packard’s Interim Product Committee.) The Loewy contract was costing about a million dollars a year, and S-P couldn’t afford that, either.
My guess would be the exposed center post was not considered a big deal when the 1953 sedans were designed, and they simply couldn’t afford to change it after that.
Everyone hereabouts knows that I am a fan of these last big Studebakers, but I still think of the 58 model as a car that only its mother could love. If you squint a bit, you can see what the designers were going for, but there are so many compromises in the details that ruin the car for me. It’s nice from the front, but from the side, the extended front droops a bit and looks like it started to melt. And the taillights look really, really cheap.
The deal breaker for me is the interior. The dash is possibly the saddest dash design since WWII, and the inner door trim panels look almost homemade. I would take a 56 or 57 President all day long, but would have to think really hard about one of these.
What is sad is how much they spent on things most people never noticed – these 58s sported a new, flatter-crowned roof panel and eliminated the vent doors in the front fenders, not to mention the new hardtop body.
One more thing – the artwork for the 58 Champion has to be the worst automotive advertising art I have ever seen. That rear quarter panel is just bonkers – on a car that, in real life, kept the 57’s rear quarters and had no fins at all.
The droopy, melty front overhang is something I’d long sorta-noticed, but not fully processed. If I picked up on the not-quite-straight bumper wraparound I assumed it was lightly hit by another car backing into it. Really, it was like this when new? There’s a similar slightly-off-horizontal line baked into the rear fenders of the 1964-66 sedans that I always try to tune out but can’t, a result of carryover fenders from 1962 that clash with the later facelifts that emphasize straighter lines.
Agreed about the artwork. The cars are portrayed as being much longer, lower, wider, and sleeker than they really were. Undesirable details like exposed B-pillars and not-quite-straight trim were downplayed; the headlamp pods were especially drawn to make them smaller and less protruding than in reality.
I’m alright with the basic shape of the dash, although some padded vinyl rather than painted metal would have done wonders. And those blank panels that cover the holes for options you didn’t buy are always a bit cruel, but actually labelling them is even worse. “You coulda had A/C but you cheaped out and I’m here to remind you every sweltering summer day what a cheapskate you are!”
Ironically, the minimalist dash, were it not so obviously a cost-cutting attempt, might be seen as ahead of its time– a Tesla-style display– ’50s style.
Tesla’s 3/Y dash is all about cost cutting too.
Agree with JPC 100%. Hilarious description of this car!
These look like a HS PROJECT made out of salvage parts of other brands, pasted together. Or, an East German “luxury car” from Iron Curtain era.
Looking head-on at the President and ’58 Chevy, all I can mutter is “all new cars looked the same back then, not like now when you can TELL a RAV4 from a CR-V…”
Thanks for reminding me how much I like the early Lark! It has great proportions, with a nice big wheel pushed out to each corner and a cabin that, even on the hardtop, doesn’t look like it was meant for a smaller car.
Along with the “Wide-Track” Pontiac, it was one of the few domestic ’59s that avoided the elephant-on-roller-skates look.
“That oil filter is so easy to get to!”
Yeah but what happens when you start to unscrew it?
If you punch a hole in the top of the oil filter, prior to draining out the engine oil, most of the filter’s oil content is sucked out also.
Very little mess occurs with this simple method.
Also works well on the rotary engine Mazda RX 7.
Great tip, Mark!
+1 simple and clever solution.
My Subaru Forester has its oil filter in a similar position, but I have never changed its oil myself so I don’t know how it works. It does sit in a small tray so that probably handles it. I have never had much luck changing oil filters. I seem to always end up with a mess.
In the great pantheon of CC features, you just can’t go wrong with one from those lovable losers from South Bend. That train wreck of an auto company was never going to make it, and reading of their seemingly endless flailing about on a shoestring budget is perfect, made even more so when they’d come up with stunningly beautiful cars like the ’53 Loewy coupe and ’63 Avanti.
And that’s what makes the wacky ’58 lineup so entertaining. I especially like the comparison with the ’58 Chevy and the mention of the two-lens parking lights where only one of them actually illuminates. If Studebaker did that, there’d be no end to the carping, but GM gets a pass.
Scatman Crothers with his ’57 Studebaker on Chico and the Man is just icing on the cake. If the show had been more popular, they might even have included it in the Studebaker National Museum. Instead, we get The Muppet Movie 1951 Commander.
The droopy, melty front overhang is something I’d long sorta-noticed, but not fully processed. If I noticed the not-quite-straight bumper wraparound I assumed it was lightly hit by another car backing into it. Really, it was like this when new? There’s a similar slightly-off-horizontal line baked into the rear fenders of the 1964-66 sedans that I always try to tune out but can’t, a result of carryover fenders from 1962 that clash with the later facelifts that emphasize straighter lines.
Agreed about the artwork. The cars are portrayed as being much longer, lower, wider, and sleeker than they really were. Undesirable details like exposed B pillars and not-quite-straight trim were downplayed; the headlamp pods were especially drawn to make them smaller and less protruding than in reality.
I’m alright with the basic shape of the dash, though some padded vinyl rather than painted metal would have done wonders. And those little blank panels that cover the holes for options you didn’t buy are always a bit cruel, but actually labelling them is even worse. “You coulda had A/C but you cheaped out and I’m here to remind you every sweltering summer day what a cheapskate you are!”
Yeah, I noticed the plugs for ‘DEF’ and ‘AIR’ on the ’58 Champion’s dash, too. I can understand the missing ‘AIR’ switch ‘if’ it was actually for air conditioning. But it seems more like something for a vent lever. I have no doubt that more than a few Scotsmans left the factory without even a heater.
And no defroster? How the hell could anyone get by without a defroster, even back in the late fifties? Even in a fair-weather climate like sunny Southern California, seems like there’d be a need at least once in a while. I’m curious as to what might have been the last car where a heater/defroster unit was still optional.
My parents traded a 55 Ford Country Sedan for a 58 Chevrolet Brookwood in a two tone white/aqua green yet I don’t remember seeing that color all that often in the 50s.
As for the car in the write-up, compared to other cars available in 1958 it doesn’t look too bad. For me, where it falls down is yes, the dashboard, but mostly because of that tiny (looking?) speedometer. The other area is the taillights. Oddly, the brake/turn signal lamps look like an afterthought or an available “extra”, while the backup lights are really clumsily fitted in what looks like the natural area for the brake/turn signal. It looks like either an assembly line mistake or was the placement on the 57 model the “correct” positioning?
BTW, that drawing of the 58 hardtop makes it look quite stunning even if it looks like a copy of a 58 Dodge hardtop.
The stylists wanted the taillight up in the fin, but there was no budget for tooling up the mold for the custom shape, so they had to make do with round units sourced from the Grote or other catalog. Just a guess.
1958 Dodge hardtop–for comparison:
I have always wondered why the Studebaker designers didn’t just add the second headlight BELOW the existing set, avoiding the embarrassing pod look. Instead of looking like a freak show, it would have been right in step with the new verticle headlight look!
I don’t care how hard they tried to blend in all those design elements, in person, these cars look sad. Everything can only get so far before it ends up looking like junk, and Studebaker arrived with a junky look by 1955 with that godawful chromed anteater nose.
The dashboard was horrible. Studebaker needed to have had one of those TV magnifier screens mounted in front of those toy gages. The interior reeks of cheap.
The Lark revealed that there was a sellable car design that could have evolved from the original 1953 design. The Lark needed to have been the 1956 Studebaker – not these sad rolling embarrassments, in my opinion. Had that happened, Studebaker could have competed a wee bit longer.
I think if they extended the pods further back into the fender, maybe into the front door, and used thin chrome strips to conceal the cut lines, the pods would have worked better. Basically would have achieved the same look as the same-year Olds without having to invest in new fenders. Then again, the actual Oldsmobiles sold poorly so maybe that wouldn’t be much of an achievement. (also, Studebaker did invest in new fenders to remove the vent door – why didn’t they make it wider up near the headlights while they were at it?)
It would have been interesting if Studebaker did the Lark in 1956 instead of the make-it-longer facelift they did. Probably would have seemed like a risky more by management (“how do we get larger profits if we have smaller cars?”), whereas the facelift they went with probably seemed like the safe move. I wonder if a popular Lark, Rambler, and imports in ’56 would have resulted in the Detroit 3 moving up their small car intro schedule a year or two rather than waiting until 1960.
“Studebaker did invest in new fenders to remove the vent door”
I doubt that they did – they just eliminated stamping a hole in that spot. The investment would have been in new internal air passages to get the ventilation.
Makes sense. I don’t know much about how steel is formed and stamped.
The idea of the ’58 Olds look might have worked out well. Maybe use fiberglass extensions that would add some width back into part of the front door. Could be an accent color, chrome strips, body color or a combination. There was an issue with narrow paint booths at South Bend, could have used pieces to be placed on later as Olds did .
Yes. Stacked headlights would have looked better. Seems that they were trying to make a narrow car look wider. Should have spent the $ for new fenders regardless. Agree about the dash. They could have continued with earlier themes from ’55 or before. The ’55 Speedster had a great looking one. The “Cyclops” reminded me of something from the 20’s or 30’s. Funny how the new Edsel copied the rotating drum idea. Monkey see, monkey do. The more I think about it, looks to me that the entire Edsel idea was maybe a plot to do away with Studebaker-Packard after it became clear that greater cooperation would not work. Ford needed mid and higher end makes that would produce greater profits. After the war S-P had a lot to offer for Ford either separately or combined.
“Chrome anteater nose” . . . pffft, LOL, that’s funny!
This ’55 was on Barnfinds. In this color, it looks like it was made by Electrolux. I still like it though. And I’ll bet lot of the parts on it are as solidly made as an old Electrolux.
Another great shot:
That schnoz is unbelievable, coming so soon after the groundbreaking ’53.
It reminds me of what GM did to the ’68 Olds Toronado and Buick Riviera — plastering on that hideous bumper-grille:
At the time Packard bought Studebaker, the Packard board of directors found out how bad Studebaker’s financial situation was. The decision was made to get out of automotive and diversify into other areas, hence the minimum budget for their cars. The Lark was a fluke, indeed an ingenious one. And the profits from the Lark were used to buy other companies.
Along came Sherwood Egbert from McCulloch, one of the companies S/P bought. . He was picked to be the head of automotive and tried to convince the board to continue in automotive. But he died an untimely death at a young age and S/P continued with the plan to phase out automotive.
To my eyes no better or worse looking than the same year Chevrolet; with a much better automatic transmission.
You definitely weren’t cruising the local auto show back in the fall of 1957 if you think that Studebaker competes with the Chevrolet. Maybe in a reprinted picture the front ends come out nearly equal, but in the metal Studebaker could have sold an exact copy of the ’58 Chevy against a mid to high level Buick (if not Cadillac) rather than what they were selling.
Even to a little kid like me, it was obvious that Studebaker was a year or two away from death with their current models back then. Meanwhile, Chevrolet was punching above it’s weight with the ’58 in a manner that hadn’t been seen since the flashy ‘junior Cadillac’ ’32’s. Yeah, the car turned out not to be as good as the Tri-Fives (figured I better head off the inevitable comments), but it and Cadillac were the only good looking ’58’s, and it definitely was encroaching on Oldsmobile territory . . . . at least on first look. The Tri-Fives, by comparison, weren’t encroaching anything more than a low-end Pontiac.
I have long been aware that Mercedes cars were sold in the USA by Studebaker dealers in this era, but I believe this is the first time I have seen a piece of sales/marketing material that included a Mercedes in a Studebaker(/Packard) promo. I found it a little jarring, in the same way it felt for Hyundai to offer its fancy Genesis line in the same showroom as a $12k Accent.
They were Studebaker AND Packard AND Mercedes dealers. And there were once many Cadillac-Buick-Chevrolet dealers, like the one I spent a lot of time in as a kid. And Chrysler-Imperial-Plymouth dealers. And…
And what were the cheapest Mercedes going for recently? Sold along S-Class Maybachs and AMGs.
Interesting that the Chevy (GMC?) pickup in the top two photos is almost the same color scheme as the Studebaker.
All I see anymore is a Lark that has been the victim of a very bad dream come to life.
The Lark exposed all these ’50s big cars for what they really were: clowns cars. Take off their clown suits and there’s a normal car hiding inside!
It never gets enough coverage that the latter half of the Fifties had a rational streak hiding beneath all the screaming “longer, lower, wider, flashier” American Way that was pounded into us back then. And all it took was the Eisenhower Recession to make a lot of it very public.
I often wondered if Lark buyers were considered “borderline Commies” by a good part of the American public like all those furrin’ car buyers. /s
The seats look especially comfy. In the late 50s the Big Three and Rambler, along with household chairs and sofas, had hard-edged seats with a bead that dug into the knee joint. These seats continue the older rounded style.
BTW, there’s a very real difference between the Studebaker and Mercury headlight pods. The Studebaker front fender and headlight opening was of course designed for a single headlight, and that pod to accommodate two was much wider and looked very poorly grafted on. The Merc’s fender and headlight pos was designed from scratch to accommodate either a single or dual headlights, as they knew the state laws allowing quad headlights were not going to be in place in many of them for 1957/1958. The quad pod does not stick out from the fender; it just integrates them into the side trim.
The really bonkers one is the Studebaker Champion, a lower-end model one step up from the Scotsman. These used the awkward headlight pods shaped to fit two lamps per side, only to awkwardly use filler panels to fit a single 7″ headlight into a pod designed for two 5-3/4″ lights. It’s like two layers of awkwardness that just gets them back to where they started from…
The 1958 Champion seems like a good example of a ‘penny-wise, pound-foolish’ attitude of Studebaker management. They surely wanted a fresh look to distinguish the Champion from the bargain-basement Scotsman, but wanted to do it on the cheap.
So, they came up with half-baked ‘pod’ design to get the latest quad-headlight fad onto the top-tier President, but then use it on the Champion, too, but for dual headlights, and in the cheapest possible way.
But how they went about it didn’t work. If they had been smart, they’d have left the Champion with the Scotsman’s dual headlights and came up with a slightly more expensive (but much better looking) way of making convertible headlight pods (for those the states that still hadn’t certified quad headlights for 1958) for the President that didn’t look so goofy. But, then, that really wasn’t the Studebaker way…
That Champion’s headlights and pods are truly mind-blowing. You couldn’t make it up.
I saw exactly the same car recently restored obviously it was on the southern motorway just tooling along in traffic but quite a rare sight here Studebakers were a big seller in the 20s here but the appeal had faded by the late 50s.
To my eyes, the instrument panel on that dash is just some kind of awful. Wow. The control panel on most appliances of the day (e.g. a vintage Thermador wall oven from about that same time) has that beat by a mile. Also, what automotive designer would think that it makes more sense to have larger instruments for Temperature and Fuel than Speed??
“Sorry Officer, I truly have no idea how fast I was going…but look, I’m not overheating!”
The speedo reminds me of one of those little toy TV picture viewers one could get back in the 60s.
Man, does that toy tv ever look like the rolling drum 1956 Studebaker speedometer pictured in the article, right down to having the same sort of fifties color.
“Entirely new is the Packard line”? Er, NOT. But the new hardtop coupe roofline used on both Studes and Packards did look great. Too bad it only lasted one year (although some of the hardtop-specific pieces like the frameless front doors could carry over into the Lark).
I didn’t know Mercedes made their use of swing axles a selling point in their ads; I usually only see that diagram in articles about the Corvair’s controversial setup. I’m guessing Mercedes didn’t brag about using swing axles in their advertising after 1966…
Mercedes’ swing axle rear suspension wasn’t without its faults, but had the decided advantage of not having over 60% of the car’s weight over it.
I have a ‘56. Backlot special. Didn’t have to wait for computer chips to be back in stock. It’s quite a chariot with plenty of giddy up from the 289 4 barrel. Even has power steering and brakes. And do you know that 56 has a fold down rear arm rest? For ‘57-58, you had to upgrade to a Packard for that feature. As for handling, I’ve never had issue. It’s right-sized for today’s traffic. Loud horn too!
Great! Like the car I saw, it looks rich and smart looking–especially in black with white accents. Looks long too–out of the low-priced field!
I just say it’s a president in a tuxedo.
Even with the weird headlight pods, I think these are the best-looking Studebaker sedans of the 1950’s, because the tailfins, even if grafted-on, hide/resolve the otherwise very awkward transition between the rear doors and the rear window/trunk area. All that ugliness reappeared on the Lark, until Brook Stevens fixed it with his 1962 refresh – something that Studebaker could have done long before but seemingly never bothered.
I’d go with the 1956 Champion/President as the best-looking fifties’ Studebaker sedan as commenter Steven Geiger previously posted.
It did away with Studebaker’s attempt at grafting on the Lowey coupe’s front and rear, as well as not having the tacked-on headlight pods or tailfins of the later cars. In effect, It was Studebakers’ ‘just right’ Goldilocks car. Unfortunately, it was a one-year-only effort.
The beautiful 1953 Loewy coupe is something of an irony. If not for it, maybe Studebaker would have come out with the much better looking 1956 sedan a few years sooner.
The Avanti is all time favourite, but when it comes to other Studebakers, a 58 Starlight Coupe come a close second. It is a sin that dare not speak it’s name…
Agree! The American automotive “Venus Di Milo” of the 1950’s.
The rear view:
I made this picture a few years ago when we were running our trucking company. We just finished our delivery in Ft. Wayne, Indiana and thought we’d grab some lunch. A fellow in somewhat of a hurry drove up in this Lark.
As you can see, this was his daily driver.
“Hey somebody bought one!”
I bet they were a South Bend factory employee family, got a great discount.
“Salesman looks happy”
He’s glad to unload the car sitting in back row.
I have a Studebaker President 1958. It is a great car and still drives good. Many people like it. I live In The Netherlands.