Dean’s Garage has reposted a Hemmings story about a number of proposed Studebakers designed by Brooks Stevens. Daniel Strohl (2023) primarily focused on the Sceptre, a replacement for the ancient Hawk.
I find the photographs and sketches that accompany Strohl’s article to be endlessly fascinating. They are from the Milwaukee Art Museum’s Brooks Stevens Archive. Their website has even more images (go here).
Strohl may be one of the top U.S. auto history writers around, but he appears to have been rushed with this story. It’s a little squirrelly on some details.
Also see ‘Brooks Stevens’s 1965 Studebaker Lark concept: Almost a baby Continental’
For example, Strohl only made reference to two Lark-based concepts that were turned into prototypes — the Sceptre coupe and a Cruiser four-door sedan. Left unmentioned was a third prototype, which was a wagon based on the four-door model. Instead, Strohl discussed a wagon variant of the Sceptre that apparently made it no further than airbrushed photos of the coupe.
Strohl (2023) also struck me as a wee bit reaching when he wrote that Stevens “supplanted” fellow designer Raymond Loewy. Sure, he had a long history with the automaker, but the whole point of hiring consultants is that they aren’t permanent — and Loewy had not worked with Studebaker for six years. In addition, Loewy arguably had his hands full with the Avanti. He had been tapped to do that car around the same time — March 1961 — that Stevens was hired to give the 1962 Lark and Hawk a facelift (Langworth, 1979, 1993; p. 120-121, 132).
Strohl’s article spurred me to look up how other writers addressed Stevens’s concept cars. I was surprised at the variances I found in facts and story lines.
Bonsall, Foster and Langworth takes varied at times
Thomas E. Bonsall wrote that Stevens developed three concept cars slated for introduction in 1965, 1966 and 1967. He noted that Studebaker President Sherwood Egbert had commissioned them as an alternative to radically restyled family cars Loewy proposed after completing the Avanti (Bonsall, 2000; p. 371).
Patrick Foster also reported that Egbert had asked Stevens to create an alternative to Loewy’s designs, which were dubbed the Avanti II because they resembled the sporty coupe (2008, p. 156).
Richard M. Langworth offered more details about Stevens’s resulting prototypes than other authors discussed here. A wagon was slated for 1964, followed by a four-door sedan in 1965 and the Sceptre coupe in 1966 or 1967.
Langworth quoted Stevens as saying, “By degrees, each more radical than its predecessor, these cars would have replaced the Lark” (1979, 1993; p. 153). They were positioned as intermediates, with prices near the top-of-line Lark Cruiser. The existing chassis was apparently used, but with the wheelbase stretched to 115 or 116 inches (the figure varies in the text and images).
The longer wheelbase was intended to result in better weight distribution. That makes sense given the continued use of Studebaker’s heavy 289 V8 engine. The cars would have been as long as typical intermediates, but unless Stevens stretched the car’s width, that would have been more akin to compacts. However, while the existing Lark’s body was only 71 inches wide — three inches narrower than the Rambler Classic — its hip room was identical.
Other historical accounts have varied even more
Let’s return to Strohl’s story for a moment. He quoted from Glenn Adamson’s (2003) book, Industrial Strength Design: How Brooks Stevens Shaped Your World. I was initially confused by the quote because it deleted almost a paragraph of Adamson’s narrative without using an ellipsis.
Strohl may have gotten the idea that Stevens only designed a “Lark Sedan Model” and the Sceptre because those were the only Lark-based concept cars Adamson mentioned (2003, pp. 152-154).
An omission in an article can cast a shadow because future writers may repeat it. An example of that may be a recent AutoEvolution story. Ciprian Florea (2022) only mentioned the Sceptre and Cruiser four-door sedan.
Also see ‘Brooks Stevens book gives useful overview of his car designs’
Strohl (2023) also drew upon an Automobile Quarterly piece by Michael Richards. I don’t have access to it, but Strohl recounted how the Sceptre prototype was completed in April 1963 by Sibona-Bassano — and “the job cost Stevens just $16,000.” A four-door sedan was simultaneously completed for the same price. The wording makes me wonder whether Egbert had commissioned the prototypes or Stevens had in order to spur the Studebaker president’s interest.
If you think I am being too hard on Strohl, note that his article was far better than Paul Niedermeyer’s (2017). It started off as a photo feature of the Sceptre, but then the Curbside Classic publisher added commentary from Rob Moore.
This self-described Studebaker expert incorrectly stated that the Sceptre was cooked up before the 1962 Gran Turismo Hawk and that instead of “doing the Sceptre, [Studebaker] did the Avanti” (go here for further discussion).
Most say little about why the cars weren’t produced
The web-based stories usually fixated on car porn. Meanwhile, none of the articles said much about why the concept cars did not reach production.
Among the book authors, Bonsall presented the most background. He 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 (2000; p. 371). At first glance, that may sound a little high because an aborted 1962 Lark redesign was projected to cost $24 million. It included a new body plus a 100-inch-wheelbase junior model with a horizontally-opposed four-cylinder engine (Ebert, 2013).
Also see ‘Thomas Bonsall’s Studebaker book is useful but flawed’
Then again, maybe development costs were escalating. Stevens told Langworth that changes to the 1964 Lark and Hawk totaled $7.5 million (1979, 1993; p. 150).
In theory, Studebaker might have come up with the money. However, by 1963 the banks were not willing to make any more loans to the auto division unless the corporation’s profitable operations were used as collateral. The board of directors was unwilling to do so (Foster, 2008; p. 160). That was the opposite of what American Motors did in 1967-68, when it sold assets such as its Kelvinator appliance division to stay in the car business (Foster, 1993; p. 131).
Stevens’s redesign was likely more costly than Loewy’s
Stevens muddied the waters regarding how much it would have cost for his concept cars to reach production. He told Langworth, “I had to plan on holding every inner panel from the Lark” (1979, 1993; p. 153).
My guess is that Foster picked up on that quote when he wrote, “Stevens claimed his innovative design used many of the old Lark’s inner panels” (2008, p. 156). Note how Foster inserted the caveat “claimed.” However, neither he nor Langworth explicitly challenged Stevens’s contention.
Also see ‘Might Studebaker have survived if Sherwood Egbert had stayed healthy?’
When I think of a redesigned car that maintained its inner panels, what comes to mind is a 1961 Rambler American. The basic body was kept but it was given new exterior sheetmetal. In contrast, Stevens’s three concept cars clearly couldn’t have carried over anything except possibly the floorpan.
Meanwhile, Loewy’s Avanti II family cars appear to have gamely tried to update the Hawk’s tall and rounded cowl. In addition, they used flat side glass, as you can see from another Strohl (2010) story. One could quite reasonably argue that Stevens’s cars would have had more staying power due to their use of curved side glass, but that still would have cost more.
Stevens’s concept cars were more sizzle than steak
The Sceptre still receives a fair amount of media attention because it is brimming with unusual — if gimmicky — touches. I would guess that many of them would have had to be toned down if the car had reached production.
But even if exotic features such as the full-width headlights and space-age instrument panel went away, the Sceptre still strikes me as a show car rather than a serious proposal. How could Studebaker have afforded such a clean-sheet design even if the board had been committed to staying in the car business?
Also see ‘1964 Studebaker: Brooks Stevens hammered final nail in the coffin’
Stevens also appears to have placed so much emphasis on low-slung styling that interior room may have suffered. Studebaker arguably had less design flexibility because of its ancient chassis, which didn’t “step down.” Cramped accommodations may have been less of an issue initially, when trendy styling sold the cars. But what about down the road, when Studebaker inevitably couldn’t afford to update its lineup nearly as frequently as larger competitors?
I haven’t come across any writers who have meaningfully addressed these issues. That makes some sense given that the Sceptre and its sibling concept cars appear to have gained even less traction with Studebaker management than the Avanti II. Still, if we frame the discussion as cars that could have “saved” Studebaker, then more of a reality check would seem to be in order.
NOTES:
Specifications are from Gunnell (2002) and Consumer Reports (1963). I have called the prototype of the four-door sedan a Lark/Cruiser because it appears to have “Cruiser” lettering on the well-trimmed left side and “Lark” on the decontented right side. I have called the car a sedan primarily because that’s what the Brooks Stevens Archive does. However, the Lark/Cruiser is arguably a cross between a sedan and a hardtop because it does not have an inner B-pillar post but appears to have frames around the door’s windows.
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.
- Consumer Reports; 1963. “Basic Body Dimensions.” April issue: pp. 164-165.
- Ebert, Robert R.; 2013. Champion of the Lark: Harold Churchill and the Presidency of Studebaker-Packard, 1956-1961. McFarland & Company, London.
- Florea, Ciprian; 2022. “The Story of the 1963 Stuebaker Sceptre, the Futuristic Concept You Never Knew Existed.” AutoEvolution. Posted Aug. 14.
- Foster, Patrick R.; 1993. American Motors: The Last Independent. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- ——; 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.
- Niedermeyer, Paul; 2017. “Concept Classic: Studebaker Sceptre — The Thunderbird from South Bend.” Curbside Classic. Reposted Oct. 17.
- Strohl, Daniel; 2010. “Studebaker prototypes resurface.” Hemmings. Posted June 4.
- ——; 2023. “The Sceptre, the Cruiser, and Brooks Stevens’s radical plan to save Studebaker.” Dean’s Garage. Reposted Jan. 27.
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- Milwaukee Art Museum Brooks Stevens Archive
It is my understanding that the 3 Stevens prototypes for totally new-look Studebaker models were independently commissioned and actually personally funded by Stevens. The light refresh for 62 and the new look 64 models was what Studebaker’s management team was willing/able to fund. Studebaker was actually fortunate that the evolutionary Lark line and Hawk GT models that Stevens worked on kept them in the game given the dismal rollout of the Avanti. It’s only too bad the 64 launch of the freshened third generation Larks hadn’t predated, by perhaps a year, the fateful December 63 decision to shut down South Bend, effectively putting Studebaker into a much faster death spiral.
Robert, I vaguely recall having read somewhere that the Stevens’s prototypes were funded by him but I couldn’t find a good reference. Strohl hinted at it so perhaps that’s what the Automobile Quarterly article says. I used to have a stash of AQs — including that issue — but lost them in a move. Do you know of any other references I might track down?
Steve
Sorry I missed your request on a source reference. I’ll do some checking. I have most of the books that have been written on Studebaker. It may have been from the book written on Brooks Stevens called Industrial Strength Design. I’ll do some digging as time permits.
Bob
Having seen the Sceptre in the National Studebaker Museum in South Bend twice, the car was more concept, in my opinion, than a production prototype. While it was very stylish for the mid-1960s, I do not know if the coupe and sedan based on the 1953 Studebaker chassis would have taken sales from the 1964 G.M. intermediates or the 1964 Rambler Classic. Even if the Sceptres had been priced along the lines of a well-equipped Buick Regal or Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, I doubt that Studebaker would have sold the necessary minimum to break even, assuming that that point is between 150,000 and 200,000 vehicles annually. Let’s face it, saving Studebaker after 1962 was a futile mission.
Thanks for the compliment, and I agree with your criticisms. I do my best working on timelines far more accelerated than most auto historians, but those timelines typically mean I have to forego a comprehensive dive into available resources. Thank you for introducing those additional perspectives and resources on the Sceptre.
Thank you for stopping by, Daniel. I would imagine that your timeline pressures are quite challenging compared to those who write for, say, Collectible Automobile . . . or even Indie Auto. Keep up the great work.
Is it just me or do you see the contemporary Rambler Classic in the Lark/Cruiser once you get past the suicide doors? All in all it is somewhat better than the reskinning, but as Mr Duvall said, it would be (and was) throwing good money after bad. As an aside I never rode in a Studebaker that I know of. Was the flat floor that big a deal?
Kim, the resemblance between the Rambler and Lark/Cruiser may primarily be due to interchangeability. On the Rambler four-door sedans the door-window frames were interchangeable diagonally. On the Studebaker the doors themselves were interchangeable; only on some concept versions were the windows fully interchangeable. I get into that here.
Kim-
The step down was really a by-product of unibody construction. While my Studebaker Daytona rides higher, I don’t feel much of a difference from other vehicles. Seat height seems a bit lower on Studies, that might be to improve headroom but I can’t really tell give my Daytona is a convertible, driven mostly with the top down. Handling is another story. The center of gravity is improved on a unibody thereby improving handling dynamics. The Hudson Hornets made that point clear.
Given I don’t drive my Daytona hard, I can’t really tell you much about hard cornering. Straightaway driving feels no different. With manual steering, at slow speed it’s a tough turn, at speed it’s effortless. With drum brakes all around, it takes a lot of effort and distance to stop, but I don’t seem to bottom out.
Bob
I would agree with James on the viability of the Sceptre – I can’t see where such a revolutionary look would have sold significantly better than what Studebaker was already offering. Besides, it looked too much like the large Fords. The revolutionary look Avanti was a styling success but a marketing failure for Studebaker.
However, I do think if the 1964 Lark sheet metal redesign had emerged earlier that would have helped sales, but nowhere near what would have been needed to save an aging marquee.
The Sceptre simply looked wrong – out of proportion – on the Lark chassis. Notice how high the seat rises into the greenhouse versus on the Lark. It made the Sceptre look cramped.
Perhaps Stevens felt the Sceptre coupe should be chasing the Thunderbird, which made a lot of sense as the GT Hawk was bloated looking in comparison. The coupe was likely the best of the three design proposals and would like have sold well-at least for Studebaker- in numbers equal to or greater than the GT Hawk.
l agree with Mr. Duvall. The cars, especially the Sceptre, were very likely concepts, not prototypes – and l have not seen any styling department photos or scaled clays of car designs pointing to those 3 designs that have been published in all the ensuing years.
The flat floor was not a BIG thing and l don’t quite get why having a step-down was a big deal either. l’ve owned a ’76 AMC Hornet as a family car for 3 years and l’ve owned a ’64 Commander and used it in exactly the same way. On a day-to-day basis, there is no advantage to the stepdown, and yes it is a little harder to keep clean than a flat floor. l’ve owned a ’57 Studebaker sedan without a front anti-sway bar and it cornered poorly. l’ve owned a ’60 Lark with a sway bar and it handles quite well – more nimble than lots of other older cars l’ve read about or experienced.
One advantage l’ve had is driving my Dad’s Studebaker Gran Turismo Hawk as a teenager – and experimenting with it. l can tell you that the GT Hawk would give you LOTS of warning before a rear skid and it was easy to correct. “Drifting” in the winter with lots of snow was a particular joy with that car and controlled sliding was definitely accomplished. Most test magazines noted the above-average handling of most Studebakers compared to the “floaty” characteristics of many other big-three cars.
Mr. Starinsky, if you are experiencing tough steering effort at slow speed with your Daytona, please look at the size of your tires – they may be too wide. The Studebaker Club recommends radials no wider than 195’s. l’ve switched back to bias ply tires of original size and my steering difficulty (same as yours) disappeared and my ride is much more pleasant (no “pounding”). If yours is a 6 cylinder you can improve your higher pedal pressure by installing two front V8 wheel cylinders (larger bore) – it works.
Speaking of pedal pressure, it’s all relative. It may seem a lot, but l owned my AMC Hornet (no power assists) at the same time l had a ’56 Studebaker Power Hawk (also no power assists). Every spring when l got the Hawk out from winter storage l would seemingly want to put any passengers through the windshield at the first brake application – because the Hornet’s pedal pressure (which l became used to over the winter) was significantly higher than the Studebaker’s!
Thanks for the insights on the radial tire width. My tires are quite wide so I am guessing that could be part of the issue. Did a hard stop at a light driving home from a cruise night event this evening and The front end really swerved. I was able to control it but it’s a new surprise. Also, I have been told my convertible may be missing front fender weights and that may be another factor. Lots of things to sort through.
I’ve always liked Brooks Stevens, but when it came to automobiles – as opposed to his Jeep work – he always struck me as a better adapter than creator. I’ve seen these three concepts twice, first at his old museum in Mequon, and later at the Studebaker National Museum and the Sceptre is the best of the lot. The sedan and wagon are both overly crisp in my opinion, something he was prone to, as with the Willys FC passenger van concept and his series of Scimitar concepts for Reynolds Aluminum.