The Studebaker Lark Wagonaire was an answer to a question nobody asked. Why would anyone find an opening rear roof panel on a wagon compelling? It sucked in dirt and exhaust fumes, it leaked water when it rained, it broiled the kiddies sitting back there in the summer heat. Oh, right; it was made for sadistic parents who got a kick out of subjecting their kids to fumes, sun, rain and heat.
And then there were the compulsive refrigerator movers. And the balled-tree buyers. And…well, I’m sure you’ll come up with some more, but in 1963, all of them didn’t total to even 12,000 buyers. And that’s for all Wagonaires; because of the notorious leaks, Studebaker rushed a fixed roof version into production by January, so there’s no breakout as to how many of each version were built and sold.
Motor Trend tested one and starts off asking “Why hasn’t anyone come up with this before?” Because they knew better, obviously. But M/T seemed to think that the addition of a sliding roof was “a natural“, and wondered why no one in the industry had done it before. Leave it to already-moribund Studebaker to take a flyer on a concept that had no history or known demand. Desperation is the mother of…risk taking.
Based on their extended test drive, M/T goes on to predict: “owners will find very few problems in the sliding roof.” They even subjected it to some rain, and theirs didn’t leak. But Studebaker’s customer’s Wagonaires did have problems with the sliding roof, inundated by water leaks from the front seal and undersized drains. Studebaker scrambled to fix the leaking issue as well as tooling up for a fixed roof version, which was $100 cheaper. Given the notorious leakage issues with the sliding roof over the long haul despite the fix, that was money well saved.
The ability to walk right into the rear compartment was considered a boon, but how many adults ever rode in that little barely-padded third seat? It was mounted so high that adults didn’t have enough head room to sit up properly when the roof wasn’t slid all the way forward.
But M/T did identify the one main obvious fault in the basic design: road dust and exhaust fumes were sucked into the wagon, due to the inherent low pressure area at the back of any vehicle. This is precisely why many conventional wagons had deflectors; to reduce the issue when the rear window was open. In fact they were commonly standard on three-seat wagons. But there was no way to mitigate the issue in the Wagonaire.
The tested wagon had the 180hp 259 cubic inch V8 teamed with the three-speed automatic, a Borg warner unit. Performance was decidedly leisurely; 0-60 took 15.6 seconds; a hair longer than a full-size Chevy Bel Air six with the two-speed Powerglide. Top speed was a poky 84 mph. The Studebaker V8 was not inherently a stormer, but that’s got to be the slowest V8 of the whole era; the Chevy six hit 95 mph. Maybe it was speed-limited so the kids in the way back wouldn’t be sucked out of the Wagonaire at high speed?
The optional four barrel version, or better yet, the larger 289 V8 in several states of tune were optional, and would have perked things up some. Oops; there go the kids…
Ah yes; the Wagonaire made a handy camera car! No wonder M/T was so positive. “Other possibilities are limitless“.
The 112 hp Skybolt Six was also available, but between its tendency to crack its head and its very modest performance, it was probably best avoided. The tested wagon came with drum brakes, which required more pedal effort than average, causing M/T to recommend power assist if the little woman will be driving it.
The Wagonaire’s handling came in for pretty harsh criticism: “the amount of understeer is tremendous”. M/T attributed this to excessive weight on the front end from the heavy Studebaker V8, an issue that plagued all V8 Studebakers to one degree or another. But it seems a bit odd that it was so excessively so in this case, as station wagons inherently have much better weight distribution due to their heavy bodywork at the rear. This typically resulted in a F/R weight ratio of an ideal 50/50, or very close to it. M/T did not disclose the F/R ratio of the tested wagon, so we are left to wonder…but the result was not pretty; even with higher than recommended tire pressure “tire squeal when cornering reaches an almost unbearable level.”
Not helping things was the steering: “very slow, at slightly more than 4.5 turns from lock to lock“. M/T suggests that the 2.5 degrees of negative caster in the front wheels was partly to blame.
The lack of headroom in the third seat is substantially impacted by the sliding roof not being all the way in the forward position. But entry was great.
Nose dive under hard braking was more than average.
The Wagonaire’s ride was deemed comfortable. It did wander a bit during cross winds at speed, and the front suspension bottomed out easily on rough roads, but rebound was controlled well by the shocks.
The exterior finish was good, and the interior was “nicely detailed”, although the unusual vanity case that had replaced the conventional glove box was not up to par in that regard. But the instrument panel got a bit of praise for having real instruments and being easy to read.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1963 Studebaker Lark Wagonaire – A Real Vista For The Cruiser
Automotive History: Selling the ’63 Studebaker Wagonaire
Automotive History: The Studebaker V8 Engine – Punching Below Its Weight
The Olds VistaCruiser was a simpler and better solution for the third seat.
Wait … was this an influence on the Cybertruck, with its sliding tonneau? No, you’ll say, tonneau covers have been available on pickups for decades, including the rollup cover on the Rivian, and the Cybertruck only looks more like this wagon because the CT’s sail panels bring the cab end of the tonneau up to cab height. But what about that vanity drawer instead of a hinged glovebox? The CT has something very similar. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
GM tried the same thing four decades later with the GMC Envoy XUV with the same, predicatable results. At least GM had the resources to try such an experiment; Studebaker, in the waning years of the company’s life, most assuredly did not.
The Wagonaire/Envoy XUV are fascinating in that they ‘seem’ like a good idea but, in reality, weren’t. I think the appeal is like getting a quasi-convertible combined with a practical station wagon.
Unfortunately, as pointed out, the aerodynamics of an open, rear hatch mean lots of dust and exhaust fumes getting sucked into the interior. Coupled with the water intrusion, well, the meager benefit comes nowhere near outweighing the negatives.
The Envoy XUV though did not offer 3rd-row seating, even though long-wheelbase regular Envoys did. Honda used a Wagonaire-style sliding roof on the concept version of their Element too, but this never reached production.
It may have been fun riding in the rear-facing 3rd row seat with the roof open and the rear window rolled down, if not for the sucking-in-fumes issue. I wonder if parents worried about their kids falling out with all that open space; this was an era when many parents bought full-size two-door sedans so the kids had no door to open. Were there seatbelts in the third row? I doubt it.
In 1963, you might not have had seatbelts in ANY row, let alone the third! Unless you paid extra for them.
I always thought the retractable roof was to give these rigs a more pickup truck-like versatility, with the ability to transport bulkier items, moreso than give a convertible-type feel to occupants in the back seat.
Well, like I said, I suspect the idea of Studebaker execs was to create a niche appeal to ‘both’ convertible and cargo hauling markets. In typical independent fashion, it was an industry first. How could it miss? Badly, it would seem.
OTOH, I wonder how the third row experience might have been with the roof open, but the rear window raised. Maybe that would be enough to keep the dust and exhaust at bay, but still offer the open sunroof experience to the rear seat kids.
To that end, I’ve always been a little curious as to why no one has offered an opening sunroof for 2nd or 3rd row passengers. Oh, there are plenty of vehicles that have a fixed pane of roof glass back there (those big panoramic glass roofs are all the rage) but it seems like there’s definitely a dearth of rear panel opening sunroofs.
“To that end, I’ve always been a little curious as to why no one has offered an opening sunroof for 2nd or 3rd row passengers. Oh, there are plenty of vehicles that have a fixed pane of roof glass back there (those big panoramic glass roofs are all the rage) but it seems like there’s definitely a dearth of rear panel opening sunroofs.”
Maybe the problem is, where would the rear sunroof panel go when it’s opened? There’s only so much roof space to go around. You’d have a front sunroof for the driver, and that opens to the rear, over the rear seat. If you added a second moving sunroof for the rear, you’d be subdividing the roof into four similar-sized portions. Each would be small. The alternative would be stacking the sunroof panels in the middle, but that would be harmful to either headroom or aerodynamics. All so your kids could fly kites from the back seat?
For a few years the Jeep Liberty offered a cloth sunroof that could open over the front and rear passengers.
I’ve always thought that these were cool. But that’s because I like small wagons, and I like weird stuff. Oh, and I’ve never owned one of these.
It seems to me that the Wagonaire was a not very well thought out attempt to do something that in our current market is quite popular, that is what is effectively the crew cab, short bed, pickup. A vehicle for people who really could probably get by just fine with a car (front and back seats), but are attracted by the possibility of extra utility “when we need to carry something”. Something tall, like a refrigerator or balled tree or a full 4-drawer filing cabinet (after figuring out how to hoist that into the bed), or their collection of taxidermy baby giraffes. You know, every day stuff.
I wonder if Studebaker could have rescued sales by adding some kind of movable (dust and exhaust-tight) partition behind the 2nd seat instead of producing a fixed roof version.
“. . .some kind of movable (dust and exhaust-tight) partition behind the 2nd seat. . .”
Ahh, the Chevy Avalanche. World’s ugliest pickup truck. But at least GM got 13 years out of the concept.
FWIW, the Avalanche’s midgate is scheduled to reappear on versions of the upcoming Silverado EV.
The Avalanche wasn’t bad looking when the “Rubbermaid ground effects delete” option was selected.
I always thought it was a clever way to have both a crew cab and an eight-foot bed, without having an excessively long wheelbase and overall length. That is, as long as you didn’t need the back seat and long bed simultaneously.
As stated, I definitely have an affinity for the Avalanche’s midgate and wish it had found other applications from other manufacturers, particularly smaller vehicles that really could have benefited from the additional cargo carrying ability. For instance, I think the Subaru Baja might have had an opening between the passenger compartment and small pickup bed, but it was just a large, oval port (the rear window stayed fixed).
It’s worth nothing that the sliding roof GMC Envoy XUV came out at the same time as the Avalanche. I seriously doubt that was coincidence.
Regardless, my main issue with the Avalanche was the poor fuel economy. With the upcoming, midgate-equipped Silverado EV, that problem has been solved.
The issue may have been that the Wagonaire was neither fish nor fowl. With a crew-cab pickup, one is free to throw whatever grimy cargo they have into the bed.
Conversely, with the Wagonaire (really, any SUV or station wagon), no one wants to grubby-up the rear cargo area, at least not without some forethought.
The Wagonaire’s cargo area wasn’t much suited to carry neither cargo nor personnel. Maybe if Studebaker had figured out some sort of hard-side, rubber-like material to line that area, it might have had a chance. Even then, that one photo of two adult males scrunched into that rear seat really puts the squelch on how useful that area would be.
But I can see one area where the Wagonaire was a success: that little 1/43 Matchbox toy car with the plastic hunter and his dog. In that instance, the sliding roof would be rather nifty.
This guy would probably appreciate a Wagonaire. 🙂
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/31/us/nebraska-watusi-bull-car.html
I’m sure that everyone in the Studebaker executive suite could see the writing on the wall by whatever year this idea got the green light for development. Sales were down, the Big 3 were eating their lunch (probably Rambler, too) and there wasn’t much left in the R&D budget.
Along comes a novel idea that nobody else is doing, and it’s pretty cheap to develop and implement. Why not give it a try?
This was indeed an answer to a question nobody was asking. Sure, you could carry a refrigerator standing up – and some Studebaker advertising and literature showed this. So what? Moving a full-size fridge is a rare occurrence, and if you buy a new fridge normally the appliance store delivers it to your house.
I wonder how many of the braking and handling problems were due to the Captive-Air tires. These were an early form of run-flats, but they work nothing like modern ones. Instead, there was basically an inner tire inside the main outer tire; on earlier ones there were separate air valves for each section. This proved problematic, as it wasn’t obvious if the inner section was low on air as long as the outer section was well inflated. As you can imagine, these tires were quite heavy. It’s too bad MT didn’t have one of the new more powerful V8s that debuted in 1963, some with forced induction, as well as the also-new disk brake option (something not offered by any of the competition in 1963).
I do like the styling, a clever and effective facelift by Brooks Stevens; it looked years newer and much more attractive than the 1962 Stude wagons. The basic body dated back to 1953, but the front end (new in 1959 with some updates in ’62) was the only part of the car that looked even vaguely ’50s-ish, and that would be addressed with all-new squared-off sheetmetal (and more front overhang) from the A pillar forward on the 1964 Wagonaire.
Looks good in this color “blue”.
Love the concept, but it is difficult to rationalize. I do like Larks best, in wagon form.
If they are complaining about the slow 4.5 turn manual steering, they must not have driven many Chevrolets, that commonly gave buyers a steering ratio with 6 turns lock to lock (and 5 with power steering).
As for performance, 259 cubic inches was not a lot for a 4,000 pound car, and the B-W automatic was never accused of being much of a performance unit.
As for the main point, that is undeniable – there was a novelty factor to the sliding roof but not much else to recommend it to a normal car buyer.
I thought the same about the steering. My ’66 Falcon had 5.5 turns lock to lock. Maybe, for some reason, the Stude had an inordinate turning circle? That can make even considerably quicker steering feel ponderous, as plenty of modern-day 4wd off-roaders show.
Nah ;
I don’t want those fancy schmancy “Captive-air” tires, I’d rather have the normal kind =8-^ .
A dual master cylinder in 1963 was indeed a big thing and good idea to boot .
I didn’t realize this car was a flop, I remember them when new and a friend bought one in the late 1980’s and seemed to like it a lot .
I’d thought it would make a great dual purpose vehicle : commercial deliveries during the week then flip up the third row and haul the family wherever .
-Nate
The handling issues are also because up to the end they were really many times over remodelled versions of 1953 Studebakers featuring kingpin not ball joint front suspensions, and since all new postwar Studies came out in 1947 I wouldn’t be surprised if was from then.. (Studebaker experts…..?)
Hmmmm….The Wagonaire sliding top sure would’ve worked on another 1963 Brooks Stevens design-the 1963 Jeep Wagoneer.
Jeep Wagoneer Wagonaire, anybody?
I built an interior cab in mom’s 63Wag in late 68 to transport a skidoo up to Chautauqua lake. A twisted teenager who evolved to engineering . I wish I had pictures….
They are the most handsome old beasts, but alas, the slidey-roof idea is a fish/fowl one that seems fine in concept but never gets used in reality, thus appealing to neither the marine-dwellers or the farmyard egg-layers and (it would seem) leaving the remaining buyers either soaked or gassed.
I must say, that dashboard is one of the best of the 1960s… unfortunately, it writes checks the rest of the car can’t cash.
GM requested Wagonaire blueprints from the Studebaker National Museum archives decades ago. I remember when the archivist there reported that back then in our national club magazine.
The sliding top wasn’t used by most people, but as a wagon, remember this compact was available with a blower, 4-speed, disc brakes, Twin Traction and in-dash tach, something most if not all other compact wagons weren’t then.
I love Studebakers of the sixties, particularly the ’63-64 model years. “Plucky” comes to mind. Certainly a more interesting and fuller line of vehicles than AMC was offering then.
Yes, Studes had king pins right up to the end….just like 1962 Corvettes and at least some if not all ‘Benzes of that period.
United Press International had a fleet of white ’63 Daytona Wagonaires. Incidentally, the blue car shown here, is a low-line Regal model. I’ve seen a video of Camp David with Jackie Kennedy and kids where they pass a white Wagonaire.
This article is snarky and terrible. The Wagonaire was innovative and useful. Yes, the execution could have been better, but the writer suggests that they should have known that ahead of time. Studebaker was creative up to the end and if this author’s premise that the Wagonaire was the answer to a question that nobody asked, then there would be no innovation outside of this person’s very small box.
Blah, blah, blah…I noticed not one comment from an actual experience. My grandpa worked at Studebaker for 40 some years.
I remember picking this wagon up in S. Bend with my Dad. We drove it to Bakersfield CA. The Grand canyon, Las Vegas and to the beach numerous times. Surfers and beachcombers flipped when they saw it.
My 3 sisters and me fought over seating arrangements every trip. And every trip was an adventure. Something most may not remember, or appreciate, Drive In Movie Theaters, is where this wagon always got people passing by, to ask, or, state, on their way to the concession stand. I don’t know what bias this article is based on, but our Stude ran well from 1963-1980 when sold still running. Of course my family is biased, (aforementioned that grandpa), as my fam owned several Studebakers. My fav was a 63 Gran T, 32 President and of course Avanti.
I thoroughly enjoyed these Americana and Indy automobiles. Going to the Studebaker boneyard in Stausburg CO. and numerous auto shows. I’d always get a kick out of folks thinking the Gran T was a Mercedes. They thought this punk kid just had to be wrong.
Kinda like this article and some comments below….
Stude sales were up a good number for ‘62, even with a long strike. I’d say this is not the conventional wisdom.
My father and Uncle test drove a version of this car in 1965 or 66. Was ordered from the factory with a 289 and Paxton supercharger, four speed T-10 tranny, and twin-traction rear. A Studebaker dealership took it in on a trade-in and had just rebuilt the 4 speed. They did not have the $1000 asking price.