Thank you I did not know that as the truck I talked about was the only studebaker I ever drove.
The only Studebaker I ever drove was a Lark, circa 1962.
At the time, I was a summer intern with my state’s child protective agency, and our office’s “fleet” consisted of Chevy, Ford, and Plymouth sedans, plus one lone Studebaker. The state would retire cars from its fleet after 5 years, so because the Stude was the oldest one, I got the job of driving it to the State Motorpool, in Trenton, to turn it in and get a '67 Chevy in exchange.
As soon as I drove the Lark, I noticed that its acceleration, handling, and braking were all superior to that of the newer Fords, Chevys & Plymouths that I had been driving. My thought was… I wonder why they chose to buy a V-8 Studebaker, when everything else in the fleet had a six cylinder engine. It even steered with very little effort, so I also wondered why this was the only car in the fleet with power steering!
So, at one point on the drive to Trenton, I pulled into a parking lot on US Route 1 in order to lift the hood. I found that the 5 year old Stude actually had a six, so apparently the conversion of their ancient flathead six to overhead valve status in 1961 had given that design very decent power output. And, it did not have power steering!
It really broke my heart to have to part with that “old” Studebaker after just a little more than an hour.
1 Like
I have to confess. I was a pump jockey/grease monkey at a local service station. We had a Dodge half ton with a three on the tree transmission and a 318 V8 as the station’s truck. When I went to put it in a service bay a closing I turned the key without depressing the clutch, backed it into our tire display.
1 Like
In those day’s if we needed to move one a very short distance we just put in gear and bumped the starter to move it.
@Renegade The Studebakers through the mid 1950s had the starter activated by depressing the clutch pedal and giving it an extra stomp. Nash cars also started this way. On the Nash cars with an automatic transmission, one put the selector in neutral and then pulled the lever up.
Back in the 1950s and earlier, there were different ways of activating the starter. Some cars had a push button, some a floor pedal, some by turning the key. The Buick had the starter combined with the accelerator. You turned the ignition to the ON position and stepped on the accelerator. At soon as the engine started, a vacuum switch disengaged the starter.
1 Like
Agree; the Canadian Dodge and Plymouth wee essentially the same, assembled in the Windsor, Ontario plant. Our family owned a 1950 Dodge while a friend owned a 1950 Plymouth. Both had the same powertrain, body with only trim, and upholstery and dashboard differentiating them.
My dad had a Lark of that vintage. I don’t remember much about driving it except it was very very basic and a step down from the Falcon.
The Lark was a full size car de-contented to compete price-wise with the Big 3 compacts, Falcon, Dart, Corvair.
I dated a librarian at that time who had just bought a new one. She admitted it was ugly but had enough leg room for her parents and grandparents. And no one would be tempted to steal it.
1 Like
Yup!
Because of Studebaker’s chronic money problems, the Lark was essentially one of their sedans from the '50s with the front and rear overhangs drastically shortened. Obviously, they used new sheet metal for the front clip and the rear to make it look like a new car, but if you look at the roof pillars and check the interior dimensions, it becomes clear that it was a foreshortened '50s Stude sedan.
And, of course, this redesign of their old sedan led to reduced weight with resulting better fuel economy, a better power-to-weight ratio, and reduced steering effort. Additionally, because all of the mechanical components were carried-over from the previous decade, reliability was better than it would have been with a clean-sheet design.
1 Like
It’s surprising what a giveaway clue the roof pillars are. You can trace lots of models through mild refreshes to styling by looking at the roof pillars.
Just watching an episode of the old TV Superman series. Jimmy Olson is driving a late 40s Studebaker that had its brakes sabotaged. They cut to a picture of him pumping the brake pedal, you can see the clutch pedal with the starter button on the floor.
Before Studebaker’s demise they had an even more de-contented model called the Scotsman. It did not eve have a trunk mat. The last Studebakers were built in Hamilton Ontario, Canada and their president made a presentation to our business school class. He did not sound optimistic.
Actually, the Scotman preceded the Lark. The Scotsman wasn’t a sales success, but the Lark was a success–for at least a few years. In 1959, Studebaker made a $28 million profit because of the Lark. However, that level of consumer enthusiasm didn’t last for very long.
A little-known fact is that Studebaker Corp was actually turning a profit again, after vacating South Bend, and consolidating everything in Hamilton, Ontario. It wasn’t a huge profit, but it was a profit, nonetheless. There were even a few drivable prototypes of a face-lifted sedan for 1967, and they looked a lot more modern.
Then the NYC mega-banks that held Studebaker’s debt made the decision to concentrate on chemicals, the Worthington Pump division, and the Clark equipment company, and to end car production in 1966. For details, see Studebaker: Less Than They Promised, by Beatty, Furlong, and Pennington.
So you are saying it was the bankers that did them in and not market forces? (Without reading the book) Just between us though, I never liked the later styling. I had a teacher then that was a big Studie fan and still is. We kinda used to snicker about what he drove behind his back. I’m no artist but it just seemed that something didn’t fit and looked weird. Sort of like the Russian styling. But compared to the neat flowing styling of the 57 Ford or 59 Chevy, just something not quite right.
It was both. Yes, their market share was paltry, but they could have survived–and possibly succeeded–if the mega-banks that held their debt had given them a chance. The notion that they were losing money is a meme that is just not true.
The redesign of the Commander sedan from Brooks Stevens might seem tacky by 21st Century standards, but I think that it could have gotten a decent reception from consumers in the late '60s. And, its roof pillars/glass area and the suicide doors in the rear prove that this was actually a clean-sheet design:
There was even a new wagon design that could have attracted buyers:
Both the Commander sedan and its wagon variant were considered to be a holding action until they could put the new Sceptre model into production:
Yes, it is possible that Studebaker would still have succumbed by 1970 or so, but the NYC mega-banks weren’t willing to give these new designs a chance, and instead they wanted to concentrate on Studebaker’s more profitable divisions:
Chemicals (including the STP brand)
Worthington Pump
Clark Equipment Company
I think that, by the end of their life, Studebaker’s airline division (which got a lot of lucrative military transport contracts) and their refrigeration division had already been sold-off.
OK, I know nothing about design, just what looks good to me. That first picture, the roof is all wrong. It is too high and not sweeping enough. The roof looks like a Russian design. The front end too is wrong for some reason, just too busy and convoluted. And what’s with that big side stripe? So the design looks like a first attempt in the studio that should have been refined.
The station wagon looks like an Olds F85 body with a weird roof again. That wide pillar makes no sense and is going the wrong direction fighting the wind. So straighten the vent window and narrow the pillar to about 25% and ditch those weird hub caps.
Now the third picture is not bad. In sum though from a consumer view, they really needed more talent in the design studio,
Now, you are speaking the truth!
1 Like
Yes I may know nothing about design but I’ve never owned an ugly car, so I know something about what looks good. Even the Morris looked good in a weird way and was well proportioned.
As the old saying tells us…
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Thus, “ugly” or “beautiful”–or anything between those extremes-- is not quantifiable, and is merely a matter of opinion.
3 Likes
[quote="Bing,
The station wagon looks like an Olds F85 body with a weird roof again. That wide pillar makes no sense and is going the wrong direction fighting the wind. So straighten the vent window and narrow the pillar to about 25% and ditch those weird hub caps.
Agree 100 %