Body / Glass: 1962 down Stude Lark vs. 1963-66; was the body integrity better on the older ones?

[1962larksedan]

I read somewhere that the 1963+ Stude sedans seemed to have more problems with door alignment, panel fitment, etc. vs. the 1962 down models. Is there some truth to that or was someone trying to blow smoke up where the sun don't shine? I wondering about 4 door sedans here.

Personally; I like the styling on the 1966 the best, but I would not be averse to a 1962, look at my nic.

[skyway]

Well sedan-wise the earlier cars had one piece door shells,
as opposed to the later ones with separate window frames.
Also shorter wheel bases.

That said, I've never found the later ones to be especially loose or I'll fitting.
At least not compared to K-Hawks.

Of course a good 60's MoPar 4 door hardtop puts any late Stude to shame on
body rigidity and fit.

[1962larksedan]

Well sedan-wise the earlier cars had one piece door shells,
as opposed to the later ones with separate window frames.
Also shorter wheel bases.

That said, I've never found the later ones to be especially loose or I'll fitting.
At least not compared to K-Hawks.

Of course a good 60's MoPar 4 door hardtop puts any late Stude to shame on
body rigidity and fit.

The 1962 four door Y body has the 113" wheelbase; most 1959-61 sedans (2 or 4 door) used the 108" version.

[Warren Webb]

Perhaps the wheelbase is the answer here. Early Larks with the 108" wheelbase would be stiffer as opposed to the 113" & likewise the Hawk with the 120.5" wheelbase. Studebaker frames were designed at a time when it was thought for the frame to have a degree of flex when later bodies (including unibody cars) became stiffer to today when strength is important for the passenger area & "controlled crush zones" forward & rearward. One area where Studebaker could have made an improvement was the floor section where it joins the "A" pillar. The movement in this area coupled with its propensity to rust is especially noted on Champ trucks due to their not having the additional support from the cowl brace to frame. This area could have been strengthened by the use of an "L" shaped bracket that tied the "A" pillar mount to the inner rocker structure instead of depending on just the floor metal that is away from the "A" pillar base.

On my 66 Daytona the "B" pillar is cracking at the belt area, an area where it becomes thinner for the slim post design and lacks any inner reinforcement that is common to vehicles today.

[jimmijim8]

A hard call to make as I m sure some would debate your question to death. If you are basing a buying decision continginent upon what year Lark types are better than what ever year don't even think about it. Just buy the most rust free one you can find and afford. They were all built strong enough to suit the engineers and most folks. I've owned a few of each type and as long as they weren't ate up by tin worms they were fine by my standards. Any and all ov'em. cheers jimmijim

[jimmijim8]

Early Lark type 59 thru 62 have the Ultra-Vista type windshield first offered on later 1955 4 door sedans. 63 and up don't have it and the door window frames are bolt on.

Well sedan-wise the earlier cars had one piece door shells,
as opposed to the later ones with separate window frames.
Also shorter wheel bases.

That said, I've never found the later ones to be especially loose or I'll fitting.
At least not compared to K-Hawks.

Of course a good 60's MoPar 4 door hardtop puts any late Stude to shame on
body rigidity and fit.

[N8N]

the door alignment was awful on my '62 Daytona FWIW...

nate

[53k]

I read somewhere that the 1963+ Stude sedans seemed to have more problems with door alignment, panel fitment, etc. vs. the 1962 down models. Is there some truth to that or was someone trying to blow smoke up where the sun don't shine? I wondering about 4 door sedans here.

Personally; I like the styling on the 1966 the best, but I would not be averse to a 1962, look at my nic.

Having owned a '61 Cruiser and owning a '64 Daytona Wagonaire, bith 113-ich wheelbase, I found the Cruiser to be a much better assembled car, better fit of doors. Granted, the sliding roof Wagonaire may not be a fair comparison.

[1962larksedan]

Well sedan-wise the earlier cars had one piece door shells,
as opposed to the later ones with separate window frames.
Also shorter wheel bases.

That said, I've never found the later ones to be especially loose or I'll fitting.
At least not compared to K-Hawks.

Of course a good 60's MoPar 4 door hardtop puts any late Stude to shame on
body rigidity and fit.

Perhaps the wheelbase is the answer here. Early Larks with the 108" wheelbase would be stiffer as opposed to the 113" & likewise the Hawk with the 120.5" wheelbase. Studebaker frames were designed at a time when it was thought for the frame to have a degree of flex when later bodies (including unibody cars) became stiffer to today when strength is important for the passenger area & "controlled crush zones" forward & rearward. One area where Studebaker could have made an improvement was the floor section where it joins the "A" pillar. The movement in this area coupled with its propensity to rust is especially noted on Champ trucks due to their not having the additional support from the cowl brace to frame. This area could have been strengthened by the use of an "L" shaped bracket that tied the "A" pillar mount to the inner rocker structure instead of depending on just the floor metal that is away from the "A" pillar base.

On my 66 Daytona the "B" pillar is cracking at the belt area, an area where it becomes thinner for the slim post design and lacks any inner reinforcement that is common to vehicles today.

A hard call to make as I m sure some would debate your question to death. If you are basing a buying decision continginent upon what year Lark types are better than what ever year don't even think about it. Just buy the most rust free one you can find and afford. They were all built strong enough to suit the engineers and most folks. I've owned a few of each type and as long as they weren't ate up by tin worms they were fine by my standards. Any and all ov'em. cheers jimmijim

Early Lark type 59 thru 62 have the Ultra-Vista type windshield first offered on later 1955 4 door sedans. 63 and up don't have it and the door window frames are bolt on.

the door alignment was awful on my '62 Daytona FWIW...

nate

Having owned a '61 Cruiser and owning a '64 Daytona Wagonaire, bith 113-ich wheelbase, I found the Cruiser to be a much better assembled car, better fit of doors. Granted, the sliding roof Wagonaire may not be a fair comparison.

The common denominator here seems to be that the 1962 model was the last of the 'wraparound' windshield design: translation, the bugs were all pretty much worked out by then. For that matter; according to my Hollander Interchange Manual; all second series 1955-62 4 doors (including 1957-58 Packards) and the Lark based pickups all used the same front door shells.

In defense of N8N's Daytona: typically two (or 4) door hardtops and convertibles back then had more fitment issues vs. the pillared versions.

Significant rust is pretty much a non issue for me since I live in Arizona.

[StudeRich]

Significant rust is pretty much a non issue for me since I live in Arizona.

THAT would only be true IF the Car you end up purchasing has spent it's ENTIRE life in a very dry Southwestern location!
Those chances are getting a lot lower, of also finding exactly the year and model you like.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and mine is; I like all 1954 thru 1966 Studebakers, except the 1962 Lark 4 Dr. & Wagon, mainly because of those funky looking rear doors with too large sized (rattling and leaking) windows and the weird bulging tail light pods on the wagons.
Oh yeah, also that multiple cubed (sectioned) Grille. The '63 gives the Car a wider, lower less vertical look.

In my opinion, you just can't compare a '62 to a '63, all they really share is the rear end, and it was even mildly improved on '63's and shows the Egbert prodding to update many things on the Cars and get rid of the ancient 1953 Doors and inside steel lower window frames.

[Andy R.]

My '63 Wagonaire had perfect panel alignment and very little rattle (in spite of dry door seals). Like Jimmy sez, condition is of greater concern than model year. I do prefer the '63s, as you have a cleaner roofline and a full-flow block.

[skyway]

X-Frame on a Wagonaire (and Convert) counts for a LOT!

[Milaca]

I'm not a fan of the exposed door pillar of the 1962 and earlier 4-door cars, whereas the 1963 and later door post was concealed by the doors.

[studegary]

I'm not a fan of the exposed door pillar of the 1962 and earlier 4-door cars, whereas the 1963 and later door post was concealed by the doors.

I think that you need to look a little more closely at a 1963 sedan. The door post is still visible. The lack of the heavy upper door sections is what makes the major difference in appearance.

[Milaca]

I think that you need to look a little more closely at a 1963 sedan. The door post is still visible. The lack of the heavy upper door sections is what makes the major difference in appearance.

Looking at the lower portion of the doors on a 1962 or earlier, the side stainless steel trim that runs the length of the car has about a one inch long section attached to the center post being that the center post is visible between the front and rear doors.