(UPDATED FROM 2/1/2020)
Brooks Stevens’s proposed redesign of the Studebaker Lark four-door sedan came off pretty weird. That’s too bad, because the concept car could have been a baby 1961-63 Lincoln Continental. The proposed design was apparently intended for introduction in the 1965 model year.
The concept sedan was based upon the same new body shell as a wagon and two-door coupe that Stevens also designed. That meant a much lower profile than the existing Lark, whose basic body dated way back in 1953.
Stevens designed a toy-like car for an aging chassis
Although the new design looked much more contemporary than the existing Lark, 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.
Also see ‘1964 Studebaker: Brooks Stevens hammered final nail in the coffin’
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.
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.
Also see ‘Might Studebaker have survived if Sherwood Egbert had stayed healthy?’
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 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.
Also see ‘General Motors trumped Ford’s 1962 foray into mid-sized cars’
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 the mid-sized Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu but $76 lower than a Rambler Ambassador 990 and $127 below a Dodge Polara.
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 for further discussion).
Also see ‘Was the 1966 Olds Cutlass Supreme the first mid-sized brougham model?’
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 be true, but the concept car was not ready for prime time anyway.
Proposal went through a number of iterations
The images below 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 above-shown concept, 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 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 Lark’s rear end was most in need of a redo
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 around an inch 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).
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).
Of course, an additional factor was that Stevens’s proposal was competing with one from Loewy, which appears to have been given greater consideration. That made some sense. Loewy’s proposed sedans had a family resemblance to the Avanti. 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.
Also see ‘1959 Studebaker: Throwing the baby out with the bath water’
Then-Studebaker CEO Harold Churchill made a number of 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.
It also didn’t help that the 1963-64 Avanti proved to be a flop. That may very well have been the final nail in the coffin, but Stevens presumably thought his proposed Lark could still turn things around.
Perhaps if the car had looked like a hit the board might have given it more consideration. Alas, the Lark concept was half baked. Our fake design may not have been worth the risk either, but it hints at what a baby Continental could have looked like.
NOTES:
This is an updated version of a story originally posted on Feb. 1, 2020. Dimensions are from the Classic Car Database (2020); weights and prices are from 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.
- 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: 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.