I normally wouldn’t have used that title, but the writer of this Road and Track piece (John Bond himself, possibly) had fond memories of the 1939 Champion, which shared certain similarities with the Lark, in terms of being smaller than a full size car yet having many of the attributes and capabilities of one. The other thing they shared is the same basic engine, a compact side valve (flathead) six, which was all-new in 1939. It had a rep then for being exceptionally lively, including revving to 5000 rpm, which was almost unheard of for an American engine at the time.
So naturally, R&T compared their stats of a 1939 Champ with those of the tested 1959 Lark, and…well, the title says it all. It wasn’t exactly a totally fair comparison, and of course, the Lark was well ahead in other attributes.
I’ve been meaning to do a post on the 1939 Champion for way too long, as it was an exceptional car in so many ways. It was a foreshadowing of the compacts to come in the ’50s and ’60s, and so very well executed. There was little that it gave a away to the larger cars in terms of interior space, but in terms of efficiency, economy and handling, it was in a league of its own.
And as noted above, its 78 hp 164.3 cubic inch six was a gem; thanks to its relatively short 3.88″ stroke, it would happily wind up to that 5000 rpm. Studebaker should have built a sports car around it.
The lark’s version of the Champion six had a longer 4.00″ stroke, still with the original 3.00″ bore, for 169.6 cubic inches, and a rating of 90 hp. But the Lark’s engine would only rev to 4500 rpm, for what it’s worth, and the optimum shift points were at 4200 rpm. Still pretty heady for a relatively long-stroke flathead.
The column shift “works nicely and is easy to use for traffic, although a little recalcitrant when forced, as during the acceleration tests”. That’s the first relatively positive thing I’ve read about a US car’s column shift in just about ever. “Ride qualities are good by domestic standards, certainly softer than any comparable import.” But the trade-off was the typical mushiness when cornering.The steering was “good”, and had 4.4 turns lock-to-lock. “Typically Studebaker, the steering wheel does not spin back after a turn”. There is the typical understeer, but not nearly as bad as the V8 versions, which suffered considerably due to the weight of the chunky V8.
In hard driving, fuel economy was “disappointing” (16/17 mpg), but steady cruising brought that up to 21/23 mpg.
The body design was deemed to be “not up to modern American car standards”. Well, yes, its basic body dated to 1953, of course. It was considered to be too tall and stubby. True that.
Performance was also deemed to be not up to snuff. 0-60 in 21 seconds was almost in VW territory. The 1939 Champ did it in 18 seconds, with 72 hp. The Champ did have a significantly lower (higher numerical) axle ratio, and weighed about 100 lbs less.
A lower rear axle was recommended for the Lark. As to the automatic transmission, “it should not be at all considered for the 6”. And if you wanted a faster Lark, the V8 was of course available.
The interior was faulted for being very austere and stark, reflecting Studebaker’s efforts to keep its cost down. The front seat’s quality and comfort were also faulted. The back seat was suitable only for two, due to the rear wheel housing intrusion.
In summation, R&T thought it was “a good little car, but it is at best an ‘economy car'”. R&T pointed out that there were several imported sedans of about the same size but offer equal or better performance, comfort, more economy, but without the “sternly utilitarian feeling one gets from the Lark”. But these import sedans cost more than the Lark, thus R&T predicted that the Lark would sell in greater numbers than even the VW, “a fact that should shake up the over-confident export managers of any overseas manufacturer you can name”. That’s an interesting prediction. How accurate was it?
It was correct, up to a point. The Lark had a great first year in 1959, and a quite good second year, and it did handily outsell the VW those years. But the VW sales still grew rapidly in those years too. R&T’s prediction about “over-confident export managers” very much came true for almost all import brands in 1960, when import sales crashed, with the exception of the VW. Of course in 1960 the Big Three unleashed their new compacts. So it was mostly a very prescient call.
What they didn’t go on to predict was the Lark’s (and parent Studebaker’s) future. The Lark’s success in 1959 and 1960 turned out to be very short-lived.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1959 Studebaker Lark VIII Regal Hardtop Coupe – Studebaker’s Last Hurrah
That engine was sturdy, but sheesh was it slow.
While I’m a fan of later Larks for styling–and for engines no other compacts could come close to–I do think the ’59 and ’60 are cleanly-styled and good use of space, in and out. IMHO they lack the goofiness of concurrent Ramblers. Of course getting a V8 Lark in ’59 would’ve taken care of the slowness.
Of course that brings up the question, “If you’re looking for an economy car to get away from the overchromed dinosaurs, why would you be wanting a V-8?”
You might’ve been turned off by the excess dimensions of other domestic cars. Plus, the Lark V8 got similar MPG to the flathead six, believe it or not.
The Lark offered a V8 in its first year, unlike other similarly-sized and priced cars.
I love seeing these reviews of the more common and realistically purchased cars than those that the manufacturers typically provided to the magazines of the time, obviously in an effort to upsell potential customers. I mean, you normally had to read Consumer Reports to find those kinds of reviews, and that’s not exactly a great source.
With that said, I was quite surprised to read in another CC that showed that the last available domestic flathead six was not in a Studebaker, but in the 1965 Rambler. I can only surmise that was due entirely to the South Bend plant’s closure when the Hamilton plant switched to GM-sourced engines for Studebaker’s final two years.
IOW, if Studebaker had kept the South Bend plant open for just one more year, they would have tied with Rambler. Or, even more possible, is that if the South Bend plant had been kept running until 1966, they would have been the manufacturer with the last production flathead six.
Regardless, reading about the 1939 Champion highlights how Studebaker wasn’t a total loser throughout their entire turbulent history. They had to have done ‘something’ right to stay afloat for all that time, and the 1939 Champion is a fine example of how that was accomplished, at least during the pre-war years.
And the 1959 Lark, despite having an ancient engine, was generally okay, too. Who knows, if the Big 3 hadn’t jumped into the fray with their all-new (well, the Corvair, anyway) 1960 compacts, Studebaker might have been able to hang in there for a bit longer.
“I can only surmise that was due entirely to the South Bend plant’s closure when the Hamilton plant switched to GM-sourced engines for Studebaker’s final two years.”
Actually, in 1962 Studebaker re-designed the old flat head 6 into a full OHV block & head. The engine photo is from my red 1962 Studebaker Lark Daytona convertible that I sold about 1982, and wish I had it back again!
Too bad it had such a common tendency to crack its cylinder head.
FYI, the OHV six was introduced by Studebaker for the 1961 model year. One other useless bit of information – Consumers Report picked the 1961 Lark as a Best Buy among all compacts.
Really? The 4/61 auto issue of CR ranked the compacts in terms of overall quality: Among “Economy Compacts” Falcon was #1; among “Luxury Compacts” the Buick Special was deemed best. Lark was toward the middle or the end of both lists. Corvair was worst overall among economy models; and Pontiac Tempest 4 the least desirable among luxury models.
By 1963/64, CR determined that the Lark 6 had the worst reliability of nearly all cars, in contrast to the 1957-58 Studebakers which were above average. The most trouble-free compact from this era was the ’60 Comet.
The Comet could be absolutely bulletproof but I just couldn’t get past those taillights or those dinky 13 inch wheels.
I seem to remember CR said the Lark V8 was more rust-resistant than the six. I may have it backwards.
Correction: Even though it’s farther down on the list than the Buick Special, CR states that “despite its faults” the Lark Regal V-8 is a “Best Buy” in this group.
I translate that to mean: “The Lark is mediocre, but it costs $221 less than the nicer Buick, and $221 is too much to pay for ‘nice’.”
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Car enthusiasts centering on cars of the Fifties and up easily forget that Studebaker (and Packard) were not only not losers, but extremely well thought of automotive manufacturers back in the Twenties, Thirties and Forties. Although it was well before my day (I was born in 1950), decades of reading always led me to believe that, prior to WWII and even slightly afterwards, Studebaker was THE desirable automaker after the Big Three. The 1939 Champion was probably their height, although the 47-52 models were decently close behind.
Unfortunately, the mess of 1953 was the start, and the train to disaster gathered speed rapidly. Ok, their labor contracts going into ’53 were setting them up, but between ’53 and ’56 it was like they couldn’t do anything right . . . . and ’57-’58 accelerated the wreck.
Basically, Studebaker managed to tank themselves completely in about a five year period, 51-56.
A lot of their problems in their last decade came down to lack of money.
Many ‘experts’ don’t know that they made their greatest one-year profit in their then-107-year-history, in 1959.
Lack of money was a factor, but didn’t the configuration of the South Bend plant prevent Studebaker from building wider cars, which were becoming trendy during the mid-‘50s?
Lack of money, and also the widespread perception that Studebaker-Packard was about to go under, which did not inspired confidence. It was something like the way AMC executives of the seventies joked morosely that if you went by the newspaper and magazine headlines, the company’s name was “Ailing American Motors.”
I was watching a show about draft horses of all things, and they mentioned that the Budweiser beer wagons used in parades were built by Studebaker.. I might argue that they are the last Studebaker products still in commercial service. How’s that for a strange little tidbit?
Those are used in parades. Just like any other classic Studebaker. No one is really using those Budweiser wagons for commercial use.
What? The Budweiser at my local store isn’t delivered by horse-drawn Studebakers?
Depends on how you define “commercial use” I guess. Those beer wagons in parades are for all intents and purposes rolling Budweiser advertisements. Advertising could be considered a commercial use in a sense.
I’m amazed they’re that old. I’d always assumed they were modern copies, built sometime in the last 10-20 years.
I have a feeling that by now those Studebaker wagons are almost like the Ship of Theseus/George Washington’s axe.
Just remember, you could get a 251 CI flathead 6 from Dodge in the Power Wagon through 1968. I have seen a 1968 model year truck which came with a dual master cylinder brake system, and an EGR fitted from the factory!. After 1968, safety reasons prevented the truck from being sold in the US or Canada for on road use, but you could still get them till 1978 in other countries or for off-road commercial use in the states.
Rumor has it that all the 251 CI flatheads used till the end of production 1978 were basically made in 1968 and stockpiled. Once the engines were gone, so was the Power Wagon.
The 251 was long used in irrigation pumps, generators, and marine use. I have a Chrysler Marine catalog from 1973 where you could still get the 251 in a boat by special order.
At some point in the mid-70’s the export Power Wagons were fitted with heavy duty 225 Slant Sixes, I would assume after the supply of 251’s ran out.
A very interesting read. While Studebaker kept costs as low as possible, were they a good value? As I had heard, their high cost of manufacturing was an issue, so that their products were more spartan than they should have been. I admire the entire Lark project. They really built an honest American car in 1939 and 1959.
Ford with the Falcon, did “their Lark” better. They took an old 1955 base Ford and put it into a new car. So, you had the proven, but dated, mechanics – but in a lighter, tighter and newer body design. We all know that McNamara wouldn’t have spent a nickel more than he had to with the Falcon.
Impressive how GM spent millions to do what their competition was doing with recycled, older cars. Really, not a lemon among the GM bunch. Each division, except Cadillac, got a new compact. GM really spent well, didn’t it? Yet Ford won the market with a car built with leftovers.
Valiant was a great car – debatably the best, but with a really stupid exterior. Thanks Exner for crapping on what should have been the market winner. Few want to drive a car that looked like an Jerusalem artichoke, and someone needed to have fired that guy by 1960. It took three years to fix his mistakes.
Finally, Ramber. A 1960 Rambler American wasn’t a new car either, right? It was as old as the Studebaker, and it wasn’t even sporting a new body. So, once again, we see an old car like the Lark or the ’55 Ford, recycled into a “new” 1960 automobile.
By 1959, the union employees had long backed off from the overly-expensive contracts they’d had 5-7 years earlier. It was either that, or the company wouldn’t have made it ’til 1959.
By 1962, they still were paid more than the Big Three. They took a 40-day strike in early calendar ’62 that couldn’t have been timed worse, as ’62 Studebaker car sales were up a good bit across-the-line from ’61.
As to recycled vs. new designs: In the late Fifties, we’re talking GM. The biggest, baddest, most powerful company in history. A company that, at least for ego’s sake, isn’t going to come up with a cheap, lowest possible cost, solution because they didn’t have to . . . . . and for GM to come up with a copy of the Falcon in 1960 would have been an insult to the company.
Ok, so that Falcon suddenly outsells your technological tour de force, and then you show your muscle by coming up with a copy in about a year (I’m guessing 3-4 months of the 1960 sales year to show the Corvair’s going to get spanked, and the car is in production by summer 1961). Let’s see Ford or Chrysler design and build a competent car that quickly. Oh yeah, while we’re at it, let’s re-aim the marketing of the Corvair completely. And successfully.
Thinking back to my days as a Chevy dealer’s kid, it was understood that GM had the power to shut down the rest of the American auto industry completely, if they wanted to expend the effort (too much stress on their profitability). Why do you think there was serious worry of the government splitting GM into two companies during the late 50’s and 60’s?
Ok, so that Falcon suddenly outsells your technological tour de force, and then you show your muscle by coming up with a copy in about a year (I’m guessing 3-4 months of the 1960 sales year to show the Corvair’s going to get spanked, and the car is in production by summer 1961). Let’s see Ford or Chrysler design and build a competent car that quickly.
Ed Cole made the decision in November of 1959 to build the Chevy II, which started rolling off the lines after the summer vacation, in early September of 1961. That’s 22 months.
The all-new Valiant was conceived, designed, engineered and built in an 18 months time frame.
Thinking back to my days as a Chevy dealer’s kid, it was understood that GM had the power to shut down the rest of the American auto industry completely, if they wanted to expend the effort.
Don’t believe everything you heard as a kid. This is not true, by any stretch of the imagination. GM was building everything they could in the early 60s; they would have had to invest huge amounts in many factories, foundries, assembly plants, etc. to increase their market share by any significant amount. This would have taken years, and huge amounts of investment.
And it’s not like Ford and Chrysler would have just rolled over dead…
GM’s market share peaked in 1962 at 52%, due to Chrysler’s weak year and a so-so year for Ford. Both Chrysler and Ford were on a strong upswing within a year or two, and of course by ’65, when the Mustang took the US by storm, Ford’s share was up considerably (also thanks to the LTD).
Yes, the feds were concerned about GM’s market share, but it was mostly just talk. If GM had kept increasing that share after ’62, that talk might well have gotten more serious, but GM’s share went down, from then on, and that wasn’t because they were driving it down on purpose. The market had shifted, and between the Mustang, a resurgent Chrysler, VW and the Japanese, GM’s market share was no longer a serious issue. From then on they struggled with a declining market share.
They took an old 1955 base Ford and put it into a new car. So, you had the proven, but dated, mechanics – but in a lighter, tighter and newer body design. We all know that McNamara wouldn’t have spent a nickel more than he had to with the Falcon…the ’55 Ford, recycled into a “new” 1960 automobile.
Where did you come up with that? In all these years, that’s the first time I’ve ever heard anyone make that claim.
The 1960 Falcon was 100% new, except maybe a few nuts and bolts. It was unibody (unlike the ’55), significantly more compact than the ’55, and had all new everything, engine, transmission, etc.
And that applies to the 1960 Valiant too. Essentially 100% new.
Sorry, if I was unclear. I know the Falcon was 100% new, but the parts were already proven years earlier in mainstream Fords, right? I had a Falcon and it was a very simple honest car without new technologies, right?
No. All the parts in the Falcon were 100% new. Just because the Falcon had an inline six, a manual and automatic transmission, a live rear axle, drum brakes and four wheels doesn’t mean it shared any of those actual components with a ’55 Ford. Cars in the 1920s and 1930s had those components too (except the automatic). But the Falcon’s engine, transmissions, chassis (with high coil springs in front), etc., etc., were all 100% new in their specific design. It was truly an all-new car, which does not happen often in Detroit. As was the Corvair and the Valiant.
Speaking of, the Falcon was no more “traditional” than the Valiant; they were both new, but both were of “conventional” layout, with a front engine and RWD. As were the overwhelming percentage of cars in the world at the time.
Correct. The Valiant was a bit less new than the Falcon in that the slant 6 was a revised Plymouth 6 with among other things an OHV head, if I remember correctly anyway.
Also, the Falcon six was an all-new engine that introduced what became known in the industry as “thinwall” casting techniques, which allowed cast iron engines to be made much lighter than had previously been possible. The original four-bearing 2,365 cc/144 cu. in. Falcon six had a dry weight of 345 lb, which was only about 30 lb heavier than the then-new 1.6-liter Volvo B16 and at least 100 lb lighter than the big Ford OHV six. (Later seven-bearing 200/240/300 versions were somewhat heavier, but still lighter than had previously been the norm.)
While thinwall casting was not an exciting technology in the sense of transaxles or overhead cams, it was new ground for auto engines and a very important advance, which I suspect Ford only made because the weight targets for the original Falcon were so strict. (Other manufacturers got into using similar techniques, but were more conservative with it and didn’t save nearly as much weight.) It led the way for the small Ford V-8, which in early 221/260 form weighed only 450 lb dry.
The irony of Exner’s weird A-body is that the 1963 major restyle was also by Exner. All his successor, Engel, did was a few minor, but effective, tweaks for 1964, and he gets all the credit for what soon became known as the premier compact of the sixties.
Such detailed specifications in the article… cu ft/ton mile? Tapley pull?
Anyone recognize these measurements?
I recognize them from decades poring over old Road & Tracks, but despite my engineering education have never encountered them elsewhere, and in the years before Google it was harder to learn about this obscure stuff. So I just looked it up:
https://simanaitissays.com/2014/09/06/still-off-scale-after-all-these-years/
Tapley measurements were used in the British car mags, which served as R&T’s model, so it probably was seen as the done thing.
It was an accelerometer, basically. Here’s the manufacturer’s capsule history:
https://www.bowmonk.com/about/tapley-heritage/
The Tapley meter was originally used primarily to measure braking effectiveness — R/T and Car Life reported braking power in G’s, which I think was measured with a Tapley meter — but a decelerometer is also an accelerometer, so they also got into using it to measure peak acceleration.
This was applied in items like the Road & Track review Paul previously posted comparing the Corvair three-speed stick with Powerglide; it wasn’t just saying the Powerglide car felt peppier, it was measuring actual pulling power.
Per Car Life (11/69):
“Cu. ft. per ton mile shows engine displacement relative to car weight, an indication of a car’s flexibility.”
They say it’s computed as follows:
(0.5 x displacement (cu. in.) / 1,728 x engine revs/mile) / test weight (tons)
I do have a softspot for the 1st gen Larks. Perhaps acceleration should be given in furlongs per fortnight….
The OHV six debuted at Studebaker in the ’61 model year. It’s horsepower went to 112 from the flathead’s 90. It did have a tendency to crack heads if ‘lugged’. There were service bulletins about this but the problem never did go away totally.
An interesting read. Especially, as PRNDL said, those arcane measurements. Tapley meters I’ve heard of but can’t recall. I can’t even begin to get my head around cu ft/ton mile though.
I was shocked by – of all things – the trunk photograph. No rubber floor mat? Spare tyre flat in the centre? No attempt at a removable metal cover to give a flatter floor? Economy car I guess, but…
Back in the day in Australia, these seemed a ‘right sized’ American car. A bit stubby maybe, and that grille was a bit of a visual challenge, but it was a no-nonsense car. Nothing new, just smaller.
I know I’ve ridden in some flathead-powered vehicles, and I’m pretty sure I’ve been in a Studebaker or two. But the flathead discussion here makes me realize that I’ve never driven any flathead. Unless a two-stroke Saab counts 😀
One thing I’ve long been unclear about the Lark: Was it as roomy inside as the longer 1957 or 1958 models? After five years with the same basic greenhouse (save for the fishbowl windshield added half way through 1955), the ’58s got a new lower, flatter roof. I always read this didn’t hurt headroom because of a redesigned transmission and a one-piece rather than two-piece driveshaft. But I can’t see how those would prevent headroom from being affected by the lower roof. Those changes could shrink the center floor hump (which apparently it did), but it seems of little help for the outer occupants. The seats would have to be lowered for the new roof not to hurt headroom. The seats could be lowered to compensate, but that would only emphasize the Studebaker’s high floor.
The ’59 Lark retained the basic 1958 greenhouse, but with a shorter wheelbase. The rear wheels now intrude a bit into the rear doors (the usual dogleg there, where previous Studes had rectangular rear doors with no wheelwell intrusion). This seems to affect the rear seatback at its extremities, but it also appears the legroom or headroom shouldn’t be less than in 1958. Likewise front seat legroom, although again there may be more wheelwell intrusion. R&T doesn’t think this is a six passenger car, although Studebaker promoted it as such. So question is, was the Lark as roomy as the 1958 President (non-stretched version)? How about the 1957 with the higher roof but more instrusive mechanical bits?
No time for a deep dive into the specs, but I think they may have lowered the seats a bit to make up for the flatter roof, which would reduce leg room a bit. I don’t think any typical American cars were so short that there was any wheel well intrusion into front legroom. The 1953 Studebaker body was maybe narrower than Big 3 cars so narrower inside, and those others got wider two or three times by the time the Lark came out.
The 1956 Rambler body used until 1963 was narrower than the Big 3 cars but with thin doors and upright glass near the body surface managed interior width close to the bigger cars.
The basic interior was indeed a bit grim, but the higher level Regal trim was pretty nice.
I wonder if aerodynamics had anything to do with the differences in acceleration or top speed in 2nd gear? The 1939 car would appear (though appearances can be deceiving) to have a lower cd than the blunt 1959 car.
The Lark was available from the get-go with an upgraded Regal trim line, with very nice pleated interiors that are a far cry from the car tested.
As an addendum, Road & Track retested a Lark in their January 1960 issue and found considerable engine improvements, which they ascribed to a revised combustion chamber, a new carb, and new engine mounts. “Anyone stepping out of a ’59 and into a ’60 will immediately note the tremendous improvement in smoothness and silence.”
Acceleration was dramatically better with a 4.10 axle ratio, which now gave a more reasonable 0-60 time of 17.9 seconds, and fuel economy improved as well.
The 1960 R&T test car was equipped with B-W overdrive, which gave an overall ratio of only 2.87 to 1, which was too high (low numerically) for the power provided. However, it did provide the car with the a useful 2nd-overdrive ratio of 4.676 to 1.
Otherwise the 1960 Lark was much the same as the ’59, but with evidence of better trim and workmanship. The overall verdict was quite favorable!
The beauty of a “Stude”. A few were still roaming around western PA , up into the late “1970’s”. A couple were not all that bad looking. (condition wise)
The others looked like “abandoned cars”. (albeit, moving ones)
Was the Lark the last US car with pedals through the floor?
No, the 1964 Hawk was to my knowledge. Still, that is my favorite Studebaker. I don’t know what other basically-1953 cars could still be out there as a ’64 and still look beautiful!
The ’60 Lark is the last Lark that had those pedals.