(EXPANDED FROM 7/24/2020)
Robert R. Ebert’s book about Studebaker head Harold Churchill is a good example of what we need more of in the auto history field — a scholarly treatment that is narrowly focused on a specific leader. Ebert covered Churchill’s presidency of the Studebaker-Packard Corporation, which spanned the short but consequential years of 1956-61. The book’s analysis is valuable even though it can be uneven.
This is a serious scholarly work that relies heavily on dogged research into Studebaker historical documents such as board minutes. That allowed Ebert to offer nuances not found in histories written by car-buff writers.
For example, Ebert shows how the 1957 Packard made a profit (p. 38) and argues that a proposed four-cylinder junior Lark was dead before Sherwood Egbert showed up in early 1961 (p. 88). I particularly appreciate his thorough discussion of the economies of scale for an independent automaker (pp. 24-26).
This is not one of those coffee-table books with lots of color pictures, big text and energetic pom-pom waving. However, Ebert’s writing style is accessible and he includes a fair number of black-and-white photos. Perhaps most interesting are images of the stillborn junior Lark and its larger corporate sibling.
Ebert also shares an unusual amount of product information for a scholarly book. That includes a helpful overview of what the automotive press wrote about Studebaker products.
Ebert’s analysis can be sophisticated and credulous
The book’s analysis can be paradoxical. Ebert tends to offer a more factually-rich and sophisticated take than car-buff writers. However, at times he can also come across as overly credulous of management. My sense is that tends to be a major problem among scholarly histories.
For example, he described the facelifts given to the Lark as demonstrating “creativity in styling” despite budget constraints (p. 129). That strikes me as overly kind, particularly for the poorly received 1961 redesign.
Ebert also offers an unduly charitable assessment of James Nance’s leadership of Studebaker-Packard, arguing that “it is necessary to temper any criticism of Nance with the realization that conditions in both the industry and at S-P looked quite different in early 1956 than when he took over Packard in 1952, or even when the merger with Studebaker was consummated” (p. 138).ย While that is true to a degree, I would argue that Nance’s overly ambitious approach would have failed even in a much more favorable industry climate (go here for further discussion).
Those quibbles aside, this book is one of the most useful treatments of post-war Studebaker in my library. I hope that other scholars will follow in Ebert’s footsteps and write books on additional auto industry leaders such as Robert McNamara.
Champion of the Lark: Harold Churchill and the Presidency of Studebaker-Packard, 1956-1961
- Robert R. Ebert; 2013
- McFarland & Company, London, UK
“Economist Joe. S. Bain estimated in the 1950s, with production techniques existing then, that an integrated firm with a single assembly plant producing 100,000 to 150,000 cars per year might not achieve maximum efficiency, but could be profitable. Another economist analyzing the auto industry at about the same time, Charles E. Edwards, noted that the Big Three set volume targets of 200,000 units per year for new models during the 1050s.” (p. 24)
“In rankings, the (1960) Rambler 6, Valiant, Ford Falcon, Rambler American, and Rambler V8 were rated as better buys by Consumer Reports than the Lark 6 and V8. However, the Larks were rated above the Chevrolet Corvair, which the magazine classified as a a sports sedan, but got low marks as a family sedan.” (p. 122)
“Byers A. Burlingameย can be characterized as a risk averter. He saw his primary responsibility as being to the shareholders (owners) of the Studebaker Corporation. His statements and his actions are consistent throughout the portion of his career for which we have a written record, i.e., the minutes of the Board of Directors and his public statements and correspondence. He appears to have seen profitable operations in the Automotive Division as being a function primarily of cost control. Product design, planning, and marketing were not his strong points and, probably, not his main areas of interest in his role as financier and as president of the company.” (p. 149)
OTHER REVIEWS:
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Studebaker Hawk (1961)
This review was originally posted on July 24, 2020 and expanded on Jan. 6, 2026.
Also on p.122 of Ebert’s book was a comment by Cars magazine. It rated the Lark the “best overall buy of all American cars”!
Consumer Reports a couple of years later rated the Fiat 850 sedan a better car than a VW Beetle! They must have been joking! Would the Fiat last 100,000 miles in the hands of average North American drivers without major repairs – as many Beetles did? Don’t make me laugh!
If you want another opinion, read another magazine.
Car Life’s Jim Whipple concluded that the 1960 Lark 6 “possessed outstanding qualities. It was well-built, attractive, with lots of passenger comfort, easy to drive, and should be considered by anyone desiring to purchase a compact car”.
For Consumers Reports to say that the other compacts ranked as “better buys” than the Lark 6 or 8 is something impossible to swallow if all things are considered. Are they referring to price only? Hard to understand from all that info that l’ve gleaned over the years!
I’m going by memory at the moment but suspect that Consumer Reports downgraded the Lark for weaker handling, more squeaks and rattles, and mediocre fuel economy and performance for the six. Meanwhile, the V8 was rather nose heavy. I vaguely recall them also finding the back seat a bit less roomy than some other compacts.
Your memory serves well – that was a good summary of their “complaints”.
Not sure about the handling of the others, but first gen Larks do handle to the point of being “just under nimble” (my assessment from driving a couple – the slow steering ratio keeps them from being great).
The squeaks and rattles must have been Consumer Report’s own test car (perhaps a test fleet car that was already “wrung out” many times by several magazines?) because other test mags said they were solid. My own 63 year-old unrestored ’60 hardtop would be pretty well rattle-free even now – if it wasn’t for the tired front window regulators, “cat whiskers” and rubber weather stripping. A neighbor’s quite new ’60s Rambler wagon that I rode in to school had aluminum-framed windows that rattled – A LOT!!
Ok, the gas mileage wasn’t at the top of the leader board, but improvements were made – and Studebakers optioned with overdrive (unvailable on many other compacts) were likely better than many. And ok, the flathead 170 was no powerhouse (maybe they should have kept it at 185 cubes, like from ’55 to ’58). The newer Carter carburetors used starting in ’59 for sixes have proven to often be less than satisfactory.
Meanwhile, a V8 Lark is a thing of beauty. Sure it ultimately understeered at the handling limit, but the steering was NOT heavy, it does NOT get blown in crosswinds, gets incredible gas mileage with overdrive and was a 200,000 mile engine, even just reasonable maintenance!
The suspension, steering and brakes were the same components as engineered for the heavier Studes before the Lark downsizing, so they were stout for compact applications. And Studebaker stuck to 15 inch wheels (as did Rambler sixes, but not V8’s, curiously). Other compacts with 13 inch suffered from having to use small brakes. And the number of wheel revolutions per mile with 13 vs 15 inch is WAY higher – it will surprise you.
Ok – l’ll stop now.
The positive side of the Lark was that it was surprisingly competitive for being based on the 1953 Studebaker — the oldest U.S. car body in production aside from the Rambler American’s. The negative side of the Lark was that U.S. car design had advanced in meaningful ways. All of the Big Three’s new compacts had unit-body construction, a step-down chassis (allowing a lower greenhouse), overhead-valve sixes and better handling. The Lark was also relatively heavy for a compact, weighing roughly 300 pounds more than a Falcon. It’s true that the Valiant was slightly heavier than the Lark, but it was also nine inches longer.
The Falcon was the lightest of the ’60 compact bunch. The Lark was only about 150 pounds heavier than a Rambler American, but with heavier,robust brakes and suspension components cited above – and yes, l know, body-on-frame construction.
BUT Studebaker also had a more robust body in some areas! The trunk had an actual floor (it was not also the top of the gas tank as in the light Falcon!). And Studebaker, in effect, had double-walled trunk sides because the rear fenders bolted on and Studes also had a rear inner fender. Now would you rather be in a Lark or a Falcon if someone rear-ended you?
Might doesn’t necessarily make right – and neither does “light”.
Ok – this time l’m really stopping. Unless…..
That’s interesting, but how would that play out on the showroom floor?
About the same as the good features of a Wills Ste Clair, a Graham-Paige, a ’56 Packard, a ’54-’55 Kaiser, a Jowett Javelin, a …..
here is what really do not understand about Studebaker in the period leading up to 1944-1945: The car and company had a reputation for good and innovative engineering. Nothing happens in a vacuum, especially in Detroit ! Yes, W.W.II was still going on, but every U.S. automaker was readying plans for a resumption of domestic auto production and sales. It amazes me that word of the 1948 Monobilt Hudson did not leak further. What is also of great interest to me is that both Hudson and Packard offered the advanced chassis / suspension designs, not the Big Three.
Studebaker for 1951 had a modern V-8. The 1952 Studebakers were delayed for the 1953 Lowey coupes and the less successful sedans. But only Ford, Lincoln and Mercury (and Nash) were ready for 1952 with true second-generation post-war cars. But G.M.’s cars were hardly structurally ground-breaking.