From the archives #107 (Brooks Stevens color art - 1963 Splendida)

[Studebaker Wheel]

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee285/studeq/newsgroup/splendidapcforum.jpg?t=1338611829

This car was actually built. It was apparently a Brooks Stevens proposed replacement for the Cruiser.

[Chris_Dresbach]

Neat car. I think Craig Parslow has photos of the built car.

[Studebaker Wheel]

This is the actual "one off." Note the front end treatment which appears on all of the Stevens drawings of the '63 line. Also note that the "ear muff" and windshield differs from the car shown in the art work. I do not have any other information on this particular car (which Stevens referred to as the Lark Splendida) but it is certain that a good deal of money was spent to create it in its finished form. We can only guess as to its ultimate fate.

[clonelark]

The eyebrow headlights would have killed the Bonneville speed time. Like the door handles. and the hood treatment.

[SN-60]

It kind of reminds me of what Chrysler/Plymouth did in '76 when they came out with the Valiant Brougham 4dr. A very nice car, and the last of that body style (A bodies)

[qsanford]

The prominent central grille treatment seems similar to the '61 Imperial.

[showbizkid]

Also notice the very tall windshield that actually wraps into the roof header.

[Milaca]

That front styling would look great on a Champ pickup!

[2R2]

Well, not that anybody asked, but here is my opinion...

I wish Studebaker could have found a few extra bucks and come out with the front end design pictured. is it better than the production '63's? Well, at least it looks different than the '62's, and I think that was one of the problems with the '63 Lark line-up. When you think about it, the '63's really were extensively changed from the '62's. All new center section, new windshields, cowls, hidden "B" pillers, on four doors, new dash, new two piece doors, etc. Yet, they looked to the general pubic the same as the 1962's as the front and rear clips were nearly identical. I think the proposed front end pictured in this thread would have helped the image that the 1963's where really NEW cars!

[Warren Webb]

I agree with Eric. The front end of this proposal looks like it shared the same hood & fenders as the 62. To me the grille looks like it was taken from a 60 Pontiac-too much alike. The heavy hoods on the headlamps detract from the side view. I've seen the parking light location on another prototype that I believe was shown to the dealers before intoduction & understand that treatment was shot down, otherwise that car was the same as what was offered. I do like the windshield, the way it rolls into the roof. Studebaker wasted tooling on that part of the 63 when it was changed again on the 64 except on the wagon & convertible which stayed with the 63 design. More stampings & jigs to have contributing to more expense & a higher break even point. Notice also this prototype has the old style wipers & not the paralell wipers that thankfully the 63 did have. I like the looks of the rear view mirror but wonder if it would suffer from the same lack of vision that the Avanti had. The door handles are a nice modern touch too along with the lower moulding just above the rocker giving it a lower & longer look- I would have added a bit more length to them wrapping into the wheel opening permitting the area below them to be painted flat black adding to the lower look.

[Jim B PEI]

About the eyebrow lights versus production (really, that much of a difference in speed?) didn't an early 60s Imperial have a get around that by having a clear flat plastic cover over the headlights, with little thin white horizontal lines on it (and it flipped open?? when the headlights were on??? like the 80s Chrysler products did but with solid covers by then)

Still, it was a Cruiser replacement, not an F2 body or C/K or Avanti normally seen at Bonnyville.

I'm a sick enough puppy that I like the idea of 'drag races' involving Land Cruisers or Cruisers or Splendidas towing house trailers! (real life fun--and the AC must be on)

[raprice]

Brooks Stevens, as we would all agree, was a brilliant designer. I love the front end on that car. Very elegant.
Thanks Richard. You have a treasure-trove of Studebaker photos. Your contribution to our Studebaker knowledge
is most appreciated.
Rog

[JRoberts]

I'll buck the trend here and say I really do not care for the front end of this car. To me it looks way to heavy for a car of this size. Very bulky looking. I guess "over done" best describes the way I look at it. As others have said it looks like a copy of other cars already in production at the time -- Imperial, Pontiac, etc.

[jimmijim8]

Love that car. Nothing about that car negative to me.

Park that one in my garage. I'll pay the owner. cheers jimmijimQUOTE=JRoberts;651395]I'll buck the trend here and say I really do not care for the front end of this car. To me it looks way to heavy for a car of this size. Very bulky looking. I guess "over done" best describes the way I look at it. As others have said it looks like a copy of other cars already in production at the time -- Imperial, Pontiac, etc.[/QUOTE]

[Studeous]

I like the way the stainless side trim integrates the door handles on the one off. Maybe that's where the idea started for the 64-65 stainless. It kinda hides the fact that its a 4 door a little. Then in 66 they thru it away. I really like the 64-65 trim.