(EXPANDED FROM 12/10/2021)
Brooks Stevens apparently was convinced that he could come up with a new-generation Studebaker Lark design that would top the work of Raymond Loewy’s team, which was then working on an Avanti-inspired replacement. Judging from Stevens’s archives, he invested considerable effort into his proposals. Alas, even the most well-developed of his sedans looks amateurishly weird.
That’s too bad, because with a bit of tweaking it could have been a baby 1961-63 Lincoln Continental. The proposed Lark was apparently intended for introduction in the 1965 model year.
The smartest aspect of Stevens’s proposal was that the same basic body shell could be shared by a four-door sedan, a wagon and a two-door coupe that would have replaced the Hawk. However, unlike Loewy’s proposals, they had a much lower beltline than the existing Lark, whose body was introduced way back in 1953.
Stevens designed a toy-like car for an aging chassis
Although the new design looked admirably contemporary, the ultra-low beltline and tiny wheels gave off a toy car vibe. To make matters worse, Stevens added odd styling flourishes such as boomerang-shaped sculpting on the C-pillar.
If this proposed Lark had reached production, it’s hard to see how it could have sold well enough to keep Studebaker in the automotive business. In addition to the off-putting looks, the Lark would have been cramped for its size because the low body was placed on top of an aging chassis.
Studebaker was the only major U.S. automaker that had not switched to a step-down chassis, which freed up extra leg room. This became essential as automakers raced to make their passenger cars lower, longer and wider.
Because of the car’s weaknesses, Studebaker arguably made the right choice to not produce Stevens’s proposal. Even so, he did come up with a concept that had some potential if it had been polished a bit more. Let’s explore the possibilities with a fake design. But first, some background.
Lark had some similarities to the 1963 Rambler
Stevens’s Lark has a vague resemblance to the new-for-1963 senior Rambler. Both cars were very different from their predecessors in offering a lower beltline, a larger greenhouse, curved side glass and diagonally interchangeable door windows.
In other respects the Studebaker and Rambler deviated. The Lark had an even lower cowl, smaller wheels, suicide doors and a more squared-off profile than the Rambler. The Lark’s windshield had a sharper rake, there was no B-pillar and the door windows were frameless. The deck was so low that the trunk was undoubtedly smaller, but access to it was improved by a lid that wrapped around the rear fenders.
Interchangeable doors were a key design decision
The Lark’s shape was partially dictated by the decision to make the front and rear door sheetmetal diagonally interchangeable. This required a flat beltline and rear-door cutouts moved forward to clear the rear wheel housings.
Note that in the above-shown prototype, the rear door’s quarter windows have a slightly more vertical angle than the front’s. In contrast, the Lark shown below appears to have identically shaped front and rear quarter windows.
Also see ‘1964 Studebaker: Brooks Stevens hammered final nail in the coffin’
Aside from the interchangeable doors, Stevens focused less on practicality than the Rambler’s designers. However, it is possible that at least some of the Lark’s more exotic features might have fallen by the wayside if the car had made it to production.
As a case in point, the concept car did not possess a center pillar in between the front and rear doors. This was stylish but presumably reduced structural rigidity. Thus, I would have been surprised if a pillar had not been added to a production version of the Lark.
Lark’s size straddled compact and mid-sized fields
The Lark also diverged from the Rambler when it came to dimensions. The Studebaker’s wheelbase was 115 inches, according to Richard Langworth (1979, 1993). That was three inches more than the Rambler’s. However, the Lark’s width was likely around two inches narrower.
I have not seen any weight estimates, but if it was somewhat more than the top-of-line 1964 Cruiser sedan, it could have reached 3,200 pounds (shipping weight). That would have made the Lark about as heavy as a Rambler Ambassador and around 200 pounds heftier than a Chevelle Malibu four-door sedan even though the Studebaker was narrower than both.
The 1964 Cruiser’s weight was 3,120 pounds. This was unusually high for its size because of the automaker’s rather heavy V8. In contrast, the entry-level, six-cylinder four-door sedan weighed 2,780 pounds. That was 160 more than a compact Dart and 70 pounds less than a Chevelle. Unfortunately, the Studebaker six was so underpowered that a V8 was necessary.
Consumer Reports would presumably have classified the proposed Lark as an intermediate since it had already done so with the 1962-64 models. Even so, the car was more comparable to the luxury compacts of the 1970s. Indeed, Stevens later pointed out that his Lark was similar in size to a 1976 Cadillac Seville (Langworth, 1979, 1993).
Lark list prices might have shifted upward
Pricing for the proposed Lark was unclear. However, Patrick Foster wrote that a competing redesign proposal by Raymond Loewy’s consulting firm “would have been slotted above the Lark, with Studebaker evolving into a builder of premium automobiles aimed at enthusiasts desiring a well-styled performance car” (2008, p. 156). If Stevens’s Lark was viewed in a similar vein, then pricing would have shifted above 1964 levels.
The lowest-priced Studebaker, whose name was changed from the Lark to the Challenger, listed for $1,935. This was only $28 higher than the base model of the compact Rambler American. Meanwhile, Studebaker’s most expensive four-door sedan, the Cruiser, was priced at $2,595. This was $138 higher than a mid-sized Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu but lower than a Buick Skylark (by $74), a Rambler Ambassador 990 (by $76) and a Dodge Polara (by $127).
The Intermediate luxury sedan market was still nascent in 1964, but over the next few years it would gradually grow as U.S. automakers came out with higher-end models. However, aside from Pontiac’s LeMans, the entries adopted an all-American “brougham” persona rather than tilting more toward sports sedans with an international flavor (go here for further discussion).
Moving the Lark upmarket could have been almost as risky as bringing out the premium-priced Avanti. Despite advanced styling, the sporty coupe was a marketplace failure. That may have been at least partly due to the incongruity of the Avanti’s high price tag and Studebaker’s plebeian image (go here).
Langworth lauded Stevens’s handiwork as “exciting” and “saleable” — although he thought that by 1963 nothing could have saved Studebaker (1979, 1993, p. 155). That may well have been true, but the concept car was not ready for prime time anyway.
Proposal went through a number of iterations
The next round of images appear to be an earlier scale model. Our fake Lark is based upon this earlier version because its door windows are fully interchangeable. This is unlike the concept car shown in the banner photo, which was a full-scale model built by Sibona-Bassano (Langworth, 1979, 1993).
The Lark’s basic look evokes the 1961-63 Lincoln Continental — and arguably improves upon it to a certain degree. For example, the Continental’s pointed front end is updated with a radiator grille and outboard headlights. Hide the headlights behind body-colored panels and the fascia would look contemporary in the early-70s.
The greenhouse also hints at the Continental. Perhaps its strongest feature is the windshield, which elegantly wraps into the roof like the Lincoln but is less bulky. By the same token, the side styling is exceptionally clean for the mid-60s but not as austere as the Continental because of a mid-level crease.
The weakest part of this Lark iteration is the rear end, which was ruined by a bumper that looks like a snow plow. This is both unattractive and robs the already small trunk of precious space.
A side view of the Lark most starkly shows the car’s odd proportions. The wheels are so small relative to the greenhouse that they look like roller skates. The overly large C-pillar, with its boomerang trim, crosses the line between awkward and bizarre. What was Stevens thinking?
Fake Lark adopts a more normal look
The fake Lark shown below adopts more conventional proportions. The beltline is roughly an inch and a half higher, the ground clearance is boosted somewhat less and the wheels are pumped up to 15 inches. Meanwhile, the C-pillar is narrowed and decluttered. To fill the car out a bit more, the front and rear are slightly stretched and the rear squared off.
These changes mostly make for a more practical car. In addition to the door windows being diagonally interchangeable, so too are the front and rear bumpers. Trunk space and wheel travel are increased.
Just as importantly, the fake Lark looks clean rather than weird. Although the Lark evokes the Continental’s brougham vibe, it has a more European sensibility. The smaller size makes the Lark taunt rather than ponderous.
Of course, we can only speculate as to how well the fake Lark’s understated look would have sold. Perhaps it would have been judged as too plain for an era marked by complex sheetmetal sculpting of other U.S. cars.
On the other hand, perhaps the Lark had enough of a European flavor to benefit from the growing popularity of imported cars in the late-60s and early-70s.
Proposal may have been more costly than Loewy’s
Stevens’s Lark does not appear to have gotten anywhere close to production. The biggest roadblock was apparently financing. By 1963 the banks were not willing to loan any more money to Studebaker’s automotive operations unless the corporation’s profitable divisions were put up as collateral. The board of directors decided not to take that gamble (Foster, 2008).
Also see ‘Might Studebaker have survived if Sherwood Egbert had stayed healthy?’
Thomas E. Bonsall estimated that it would have “cost something close to $20 million” to tool up for a major redesign even if it drew upon existing components. The price tag was somewhat lower than for an aborted 1962 redesign, which was projected to cost $24 million. This included a smaller, 100-wheelbase companion model and a new horizontally-opposed four-cylinder engine (Ebert, 2013).
Whatever the cost of Stevens’s proposal, it would surely have been far more than a facelift he gave to the Lark and Hawk for the 1964 model year. That reportedly cost $7.5 million (Langworth, 1979, 1993).
Stevens’s proposal did not appear to get as much attention as Loewy’s, which advanced far enough along that prototypes were built. That made some sense. Loewy’s proposed sedans had a family resemblance to the Avanti. Perhaps most importantly, they also appear to have drawn more from the existing Hawk body, which presumably would have reduced development costs.
The latter point deserves attention. Langworth quoted Stevens as saying that “I had to plan on holding every inner panel from the Lark,” (1979, 1993, p. 153). Unless he was merely talking about the floorpan, that doesn’t look possible.
How the ball might have bounced differently
Studebaker plausibly could have been able to afford a major redesign if it had made a few different choices. Perhaps the biggest mistake was downsizing the 1959 Lark too much. This forced the car to compete directly against much more modern entry-level compacts from the Big Three. In contrast, the senior Ramblers sold quite well in the early-60s partly because they were larger and roomier cars than their Detroit competition (go here for further discussion).
Then-Studebaker CEO Harold Churchill made some other crucial mistakes. Among them was to not keep the Lark’s styling up to date. That contributed to a sales collapse in 1961 which accelerated efforts by the corporation’s board of directors to ease out of the automotive business.
Also see ‘Accounts of Brooks Stevens’s Studebaker Sceptre and siblings can vary‘
It also didn’t help that the 1963-64 Avanti proved to be a flop. Langworth may very well have been correct that by 1963 nothing could have saved the automaker’s passenger-car ambitions.
I have argued that Studebaker’s best hope would have been to begin shifting to a lineup of trucks and sport-utility vehicles in the early-60s and angle for a tie up with either Kaiser-Jeep or International-Harvester (go here). Thus, I am not implying that our fake car could have “saved” Studebaker. I partly wanted to show how Stevens’s design could have been fairly easily cleaned up. I also wanted to illustrate what a fairly compact, premium-priced sedan might have looked like in the mid-60s.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on Feb. 1, 2020, updated on Dec. 10, 2021 and expanded on June 3, 2025. Dimensions are from the Classic Car Database (2020); weights and prices are from Flory (2004), Gunnell (2002), and Flammang and Kowalke (1999). Dimensions for Stevens’s Lark proposal are estimates because they were either not available or in dispute. For example, Langworth quoted Stevens as saying the wheelbase was 116 inches but a number of images by Stevens list 115 inches (1979, 1993; p. 152).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Adamson, Glenn; 2003. Industrial Strength Design: How Brooks Stevens Shaped Your World. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
- Bonsall, Thomas E.; 2000. More Than They Promised: The Studebaker Story. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
- Classic Car Database; 2020. “Search for specifications.” Accessed January 18.
- Ebert, Robert R.; 2013. Champion of the Lark: Harold Churchill and the Presidency of Studebaker-Packard, 1956-1961. McFarland & Company, London.
- Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2004. American Cars, 1960-1972. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- Foster, Patrick; 2008. Studebaker: The Complete History. Motorbooks International, Minneapolis, MN.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M.; 1979, 1993. Studebaker 1946-1966: The Classic Postwar Years. Motorbooks International, Osceola, WI.
- Strohl, Daniel; 2016. “The Sceptre, the Cruiser, and Brooks Stevens’s radical plan to save Studebaker.” Hemmings. Posted March 16.
ADVERTISEMENTS & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Rambler (1963)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet Chevelle (1964); Dodge Polara (1964); Rambler (1962); Studebaker (1964)
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- Milwaukee Art Museum Brooks Stevens Archives
Another interesating “What-If”. Studebaker was on its deathbed after 1956. While the Lark was a great “Hail Mary” effort, it was a holding pattern until a “new” car could bd designed and put in production in, let’s say, 1961 or 1962. But Studebaker had no money for significant new tooling or a new body shell. The Avanti wound up being a diversion that was too late, since body shell production gremlins delayed its 1962 introduction to 1963. And for all of the interesting detail features of the 1963-1964 Studebakers (in my opinion), the entire mainline sedans never measured up to the standard set by the brilliant 1963 Rambler Classic and Ambassador. With no money to build bread-and-butter sedans as good as the Rambler or the G.M. 1964 intermediates, Studebaker had not chance to survive.
“a competing redesign proposal by Raymond Loewy’s consulting firm “would have been slotted above the Lark, with Studebaker evolving into a builder of premium automobiles aimed at enthusiasts desiring a well-styled performance car” This may have been Studebaker’s niche. Since Studebaker autos were only one division of a multifaceted company, it could survive as sort of a North American Volvo. Hmm. Now there is an interesting merger idea. Use the Volvo chassis mated to a subframe with a modern V8 developed (or bought) by Studebaker, with a skin and interior more to American tastes.
The Lark may have held up better if it wasn’t bobbed so much, but the body core was the same size as its ‘full size’ predecessors. It was small from the start, and while the longer Cruiser body helped with rear legroom when it was reintroduced, they were still quite narrow. Studebaker was doomed as long as it was tied to undersized 1953-era bodies no matter how skillfully they were re-skinned.
The Sceptre as a 4 door sedan coupé styled so as to catsch all
Maybe at the 2,9 metres wheelbase or something bigger?
That car would have sold well. Stude’s problem was the lack of dealers and too many managers. Car Life had a story in Feb 1964 that went into the shortcomings of how the company was run. If the board were committed and cleaned up the management excesses the company would have succeeded. Tying up with Toyota, which was a possibility until the American lawyers screwed up would have taken them to a much higher level. Finally, they needed better dealer covering the country. I recall that coverage was only 30%. A lot to fix, but the product worked and this one looks great.