by "Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
Published 01/28/2017 at 20:27
by "Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
Published 01/28/2017 at 20:27
No Tags
STARS: 9
At the Turlock Swap Meet
"Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)" (bman76-4)
01/28/2017 at 20:35, STARS: 1
I don’t find that to be a particularly good looking car. It’s in great condition but it’s kinda clunky design wise.
"The Snowman" (the-snowman)
01/28/2017 at 20:35, STARS: 0
Did you see a 27 Ford roadster yellow with purple scallops?
"NeedForSwede" (needforswede)
01/28/2017 at 20:40, STARS: 1
Incredible, I saw the same model today. Different color, sort of an aquamarine, and whitewall tires. Absolutely beautiful.
"Urambo Tauro" (urambotauro)
01/28/2017 at 20:43, STARS: 1
Yeah, old cars in that kind of condition tend to dazzle me so much that it’s hard to be objective about whether they’re actually beautiful or not.
"fintail" (fintail)
01/28/2017 at 20:43, STARS: 1
Nice color. These are from the era when Stude distributed MBs in the US - I think there’s a MB element to the front end and some profile angles.
"AMC/Renauledge" (n2skylark)
01/28/2017 at 20:55, STARS: 0
These have so much character and elegance per square inch. It’s too bad they didn’t sell better.
"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
01/28/2017 at 21:00, STARS: 0
The four-door American sedan aesthetic. Classic.
"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
01/28/2017 at 21:00, STARS: 0
This one likely looks nicer now than it did on the showroom floor.
"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
01/28/2017 at 21:01, STARS: 0
Possibly. I didn’t pay a lot of attention to the cars; I was mostly looking at the pookey offered for sale.
"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
01/28/2017 at 21:04, STARS: 0
Before their time, perhaps? Too different from what the other auto makers were telling folks they wanted or needed?
"Berang" (berang)
01/28/2017 at 22:00, STARS: 2
Studebaker always had more style than their competition.
"ranwhenparked" (ranwhenparked)
01/28/2017 at 23:12, STARS: 4
The Lark actually sold pretty well (for a Studebaker) when it came out in 1959 and probably postponed the death of their automotive division for a few years. But, it was developed on a shoestring budget and was basically a decade-old design by 1963, at which point the Big Three had their own, brand-new compacts on the market.
"Tristan" (casselts)
01/29/2017 at 00:09, STARS: 3
Indeed. The ‘59 Lark was just a truncated version of the larger, boxy-fied version of the 1953 cars. They certainly got a lot of mileage out of a platform in an age when it was uncommon to do so. IIRC, Studebaker really went out on a limb spending money to redesign the greenhouse for 1963. IMO, it needed it sooner, as the ‘59-’62 Larks really showed their 1953 lineage in the pillars.
"AMC/Renauledge" (n2skylark)
01/29/2017 at 01:17, STARS: 1
The Lark was actually behind the times by 1963. It was basically a 1953 Studebaker sedan shell with the overhangs cut off and the front axle brought closer to the dash. It didn’t even have a drop body.
While the Lark got Studebaker into the compact market a year before the Big 3, all the independents except Packard got there first: Crosley was always there. Nash did 3 different compacts in 1950, 54, and 56. Hudson came out with the compact Jet in ‘53. Kaiser had the Henry J by 1951. And Willys had the Aero in ‘52.
And once the Big 3 hit the market in ‘60 and ‘61, the Lark looked like the aging car it was. Especially against the ‘63 Ramblers.
I still love them, though. They have a character and dignity that most of the other compacts lacked.
"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
01/29/2017 at 12:57, STARS: 1
As you mention it, I think the scale of the car is what makes it appeal so strongly to me. Personally, I think there’s a Bentley wrapped up in that design, appearance-wise, but three-quarter scale. I think it’s a beautiful car and timeless, in a sense, probably again owing to its scale.
"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
01/29/2017 at 12:59, STARS: 0
Character and dignity. I like how you put that. And a very sensible scale.
What do you mean by
drop body
?
"AMC/Renauledge" (n2skylark)
01/29/2017 at 13:16, STARS: 1
By 1959 or ‘60, most cars had passenger compartments dropped between the frame rails like the car on the left. The Lark was still built on top of its frame rails, which made it much higher. As was its center of gravity.
And scale and your comparison to Bentley is really interesting. Studebaker was styling their cars at this point to look like Mercedes, since Studebaker dealers had sold Mercedes models since 1958.
And the contemporary Bentley Continentals were like the Studebakers in that both platforms were originally launched in 1952 and carried into the mid-60s.
"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
01/29/2017 at 13:30, STARS: 0
Very interesting, and thank you for the explanation and the excellent illustration. The absence of a drop probably adds an inch or two to the boxiness of the car, which boxiness appeals to me. My reference to Bentley has to do with more recent designs, which tend to stay boxier than the current trends in automotive design.
As you explain it, my opinion would be that the lack of the drop body would be a significant detractor to the design.
My taste in automotive vehicles is driven in large part by practicality and functionality. Vehicles need to be comfortable and the passenger needs to be able to see out, or they need to be utile, hence, my choice of a
‘71 GMC van
as my project car. As well, my idea of a
supercar
would be a Cadillac CTS-V. There’s no reason a comfortable sedan that seats four or five should not also haul significant ass, which is something that Bentley strives for, though the dee-preesh on one of those is astronomical. It probably costs $100 grand just do drive one of those off the lot. (I’d buy my CTS-V from an old guy after he’d owned it two years.)
"AMC/Renauledge" (n2skylark)
01/29/2017 at 14:02, STARS: 1
The lack of a drop body isn’t a detractor to design. I simply made that reference to indicate that the Lark just wasn’t “ahead of its time.”
I love the look of the Lark. Any year or body. It’s stately and elegant.
"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
01/29/2017 at 14:11, STARS: 0
Stately. I like that descriptor also.
No,
detractor
is significant in my own opinion of the design, and will inform my taste in cars moving forward.
"Manwich - now Keto-Friendly" (manwich)
01/29/2017 at 14:15, STARS: 1
That car is in beautiful condition. But I recall reading that in terms of styling, it was viewed as being behind the times when it was new. And it was also a heavier BOF design and inferior to the competition... specifically inferior to the Rambler and the Chrysler A-bodies.
"Manwich - now Keto-Friendly" (manwich)
01/29/2017 at 14:18, STARS: 0
It refers to Body-on-Frame vs Unitized Body construction. The Studebaker had BOF, much of the competition had unibody.
The advantages of unibody are better space utilization and less weight.
"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
01/29/2017 at 14:42, STARS: 0
There have been some comments here that have been very informative. Heavy, no drop body... Makes it less of a car to my assessment, but no less lovely of a speciman.
"AMC/Renauledge" (n2skylark)
01/29/2017 at 15:49, STARS: 1
Not necessarily. Even though GM’s and Ford’s big cars of the era were body-on-frame, their floor pans were still built between the frame rails instead of atop them, like the Studebaker’s were.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Studebaker tried advertising this as a benefit, but it was really just evidence of older design.
"Tristan" (casselts)
01/29/2017 at 21:00, STARS: 0
Dat low-hanging frame and flat floor, doe.