How do we compare? A Studebaker-Mopar faceoff

[drpreposterous]

I was looking at some daily driver threads on the forum, and in one, a number of members warned a college student seeking a Lark daily driver that he would be "nickle and dimed to death." Many also opined he would be time-challenged by such a prospect. Now, in recent years, I kept a '64 Dart as a daily, even up here in salty Michigan. The slant six and TorqueFlite had been rebuilt by the P.O. It served me well, with minimal maintenance costs and no major repairs for several years. It certainly cost less than an '03 Civic would cost in annual repairs and maintenance. And even when you account for a disc brake conversion, electronic ignition and Scat Procar seats with headrests and three-point belts, my initial purchase-plus-upgrades cost was under that of a typical 10-year-old Civic. The right ol' Mopar makes a fine cheapo, roundtownable in my admittedly non-expert opinion.

So does the Lark not compare with the Dart? Or is the slant six and Torqueflite totally above the flathead/Borg Warner league?

[jclary]

Well...I suppose you could invoke the "economy of scale" rule depending on how recent a time period we're discussing. The slant six was around as a "non-orphan" far more recent than the Studebaker. Back in the seventies, I had an old Valiant, and a Dodge Demon that were powered by the slant six. Although differently configured, the mechanical components of both cars and power plants are very similar. One being OHV and the other a flathead...but both use valves, lifters, push rods, fuel pumps, carbs, etc, etc.

The fact that the Chrysler products enjoyed a longer run into "recent" times...larger production numbers...larger contemporary recognition, probably gives it the edge in public recognition, and acceptance. We Studebaker fans may feel very competent and confident servicing, working on, and keeping our vehicles on the road. We have a community that, once involved, can lead us to take for granted the way the rest of the world sees our strange cars with the funny name. For example, I have never had anyone ask me "What's a Plymouth?" Or..."What's a Dodge...who made them?"

For years now, my home has housed more Studebaker vehicles at any given time, than other makes. If we Studebaker folks manage to keep our base of followers, SDC, vendors, along with our resourceful improvisors...the day may come when the old Chrysler products are less recognized than Studebakers.

Of course...there is a certain segment of our society who would hope that someday, there will be no internal combustion engine powered vehicles left on the planet.

[rockinhawk]

I had several slant 6s through the years. 3 trucks,2 sedans, and a plymouth wagon. It had a slant six with a 4spd. The last one was a new 82 dodge pick up. they were tough engines but it think better compared with a Commander 6. The cid of the slant 6 was 225 ,I think. It was much stronger and more powerful than the Champion.
My 82,also Slant 6 with 4 spd would run 74 mph wide open. I know this because that's how I drove it, Wide open. I got several tickets for going 74 in a 55.

[Flashback]

Shame on you Neil. You are setting a bad example for us young folks. LOL

[SN-60]

Other than they were both considered 'compacts' at the time.....a '64 Stude lark and a '64 Dodge Dart.....are VERY different cars. Built entirely differently....Really not mechanically comparable.

[rockinhawk]

The V8 models were a little closer. 273 vs 259. I prefer the 259.




I've gotten a little wiser since those days, Tex.

[PackardV8]

I was looking at some daily driver threads on the forum, and in one, a number of members warned a college student seeking a Lark daily driver that he would be "nickle and dimed to death." Many also opined he would be time-challenged by such a prospect. Now, in recent years, I kept a '64 Dart as a daily, even up here in salty Michigan. The slant six and TorqueFlite had been rebuilt by the P.O. It served me well, with minimal maintenance costs and no major repairs for several years. It certainly cost less than an '03 Civic would cost in annual repairs and maintenance. And even when you account for a disc brake conversion, electronic ignition and Scat Procar seats with headrests and three-point belts, my initial purchase-plus-upgrades cost was under that of a typical 10-year-old Civic. The right ol' Mopar makes a fine cheapo, roundtownable in my admittedly non-expert opinion.

To make a general statement from one example is not considered good science. We're glad you had good service from your '64 Dart and I'd agree it is a fun antique which I'd enjoy driving myself.

However, an '03 Civic is a much more modern, much more reliable, better all around transportation device for any practical use. Having been in the auto repair business in one way or another over the years, I'd flatly disagree the typical '64 Dart would be more economical to operate, either from fuel consumption or repair costs than the typical '03 Civic. That your results varied does not prove the rule.

This argument is hardly new news. Back in 1966, I was driving a Studebaker Flight Hawk which required regular repairs and occasionally left me stranded. My sainted grandmother felt so sorry for me, indeed prayed it would make it easier for me to concentrate on my studies, so she bought me a new 1966 Ford Falcon 289" coupe. The Falcon was dead reliable transportation, much faster and also much more economical than the Champion 185" dead head six. Didn't help the grades much, but I managed to stay in school, get the degree, get the Army commission and make her proud. In spite of her pointing out the advantages of new cars over old Studebakers, I've always owned one to three of them and still drive them, just not daily or in inclement weather.

Bottom line - love our old iron for what it is. Don't embarrass ourselves trying to make a case it can do anything as well as, much less better than 21st century cars. The reason a number of members warned the college student he'd be "nickel and dimed to death" was we've experienced exactly that with our own Studes over the past fifty years.

So does the Lark not compare with the Dart? Or is the slant six and Torqueflite totally above the flathead/Borg Warner league?

I will give you this one. That we love something shouldn't blind us to the world as it is. Yes, the Champion six/B-W is definitely inferior in every respect to the reliability of the '64 Dart. Why wouldn't it be? That's comparing a 1939 engine design, a 1953 body/chassis, a 1955 transmission assembled by a dying independent with 1960s Mopar technology.

Again, all that is necessary is to say we love and appreciate driving old iron. It's not necessary to say it's better than anything else or even as good as anything else. "Das ding an sich" The thing itself, that's sufficient.

Your opinions and results may vary.

Jack Vines

[John Brayton]

I have both Studebakers and Plymouths (love them both).....had a great deal of trouble finding parts for the 62 Valiant.....the 53 Studebaker was much easier to get parts for.

Regards,

[Bob Andrews]

To make a general statement from one example is not considered good science. We're glad you had good service from your '64 Dart and I'd agree it is a fun antique which I'd enjoy driving myself.

However, an '03 Civic is a much more modern, much more reliable, better all around transportation device for any practical use. Having been in the auto repair business in one way or another over the years, I'd flatly disagree the typical '64 Dart would be more economical to operate, either from fuel consumption or repair costs than the typical '03 Civic. That your results varied does not prove the rule.

This argument is hardly new news. Back in 1966, I was driving a Studebaker Flight Hawk which required regular repairs and occasionally left me stranded. My sainted grandmother felt so sorry for me, indeed prayed it would make it easier for me to concentrate on my studies, so she bought me a new 1966 Ford Falcon 289" coupe. The Falcon was dead reliable transportation, much faster and also much more economical than the Champion 185" dead head six. Didn't help the grades much, but I managed to stay in school, get the degree, get the Army commission and make her proud. In spite of her pointing out the advantages of new cars over old Studebakers, I've always owned one to three of them and still drive them, just not daily or in inclement weather.

Bottom line - love our old iron for what it is. Don't embarrass ourselves trying to make a case it can do anything as well as, much less better than 21st century cars. The reason a number of members warned the college student he'd be "nickel and dimed to death" was we've experienced exactly that with our own Studes over the past fifty years.

I will give you this one. That we love something shouldn't blind us to the world as it is. Yes, the Champion six/B-W is definitely inferior in every respect to the reliability of the '64 Dart. Why wouldn't it be? That's comparing a 1939 engine design, a 1953 body/chassis, a 1955 transmission assembled by a dying independent with 1960s Mopar technology.

Again, all that is necessary is to say we love and appreciate driving old iron. It's not necessary to say it's better than anything else or even as good as anything else. "Das ding an sich" The thing itself, that's sufficient.

Your opinions and results may vary.

Jack Vines

I make it a point to not just quote entire posts, only the section pertinent to my response. That holds true here- my comment is, your entire post is dead on. Well said.

[capwombat]

Jack --

Methinks you have a bit of the poet in you...

Regards,

John Sartorius

[1962larksedan]

I have both Studebakers and Plymouths (love them both).....had a great deal of trouble finding parts for the 62 Valiant.....the 53 Studebaker was much easier to get parts for.

Regards,

One huge advantage that Studebaker/Avanti does have compared to many other 'vintage' vehicles is there is a significant amount of component overlap from c. 1947-85; either mechanically or body wise. In other words; 'weird' things like 1955 1/2 to 1962 4 doors and Champ pickups use the same front door shell, the suspension is virtually identical from 1951-85 and some of the sheetmetal swaps between 1947-52 passenger cars. And it's quite easy to swap in a later motor /Tranny into a Stude using factory parts i.e. the SB Chevy.

What saves cars like the Ford Falcon, Mopar A body, Chevy II Nova and even the later Rambler American is many of their parts could be replaced by 1970's cars and trucks/Jeeps.

[swvalcon]

In the mid 60's my dad had a 60 lark 2dr. Flat head 6 and three on the tree. He drove it to work everyday about 50 miles round trip and we used it as a family car. I used it sometimes to go out on friday or saturday night with my buddies. We drove the thing everywhere and never had it break down. So they can be dependable.

[raprice]

Jack,

Well said!!!

Rog

[Noxnabaker]

I've had loads of early 60's compact Mopar's, a bunch of 62-65 Nova's & 2 Falcons & the MoPar's are mighty good & reliable -just as the rest- but they also have road-holding... otherwise I think those car's are about the same; light but still pretty solid-built cars.
& as stated above: Studebaker was a bit "older" but it's like the Falcon: either you get used to it & drive "carefuller" or you up-grade it.
& even as the Valiant's & Dart's had better road-holding they could benefit from bigger wheels like the Australian-made ones had, while Studebaker already has 15-inch wheels.

& then it's the egoistic aspect also, compared to a ***-crap "car": When sitting in a traffic-jam or waiting for the light to turn green I can enjoy the look of my steering-wheel & dash-board, bonus there!
(that's how daft I am!)

[Mike Van Veghten]

dr -

Well...My 59 Lark, 2dr wagon is my daily driver. While it doesn't get driven exactly "daily", it is my ONLY car, for just driving. My other running car is a weekend car only.

So, yes..there is NO reason you can't have a Stude as a daily driver, school, store, the park, the local fast food place...etc.
Mine's only left me stranded once in a little over 11 years, and that was the thermostat. My Lark's been good to me over the years with "MINIMAL" upkeep. Tuneups, and oil changes come as I remember them..! Valve checks/adjustments come when asked..(rough idling..!) Not exactly proper, but it works just fine.

As far as the Chrysler...I'd guess it'd be pretty much the same.
If you start with a reasonably good condition car (any brand), just keep it that condition.

Mike