Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1962 Lark questions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1962 Lark questions

    As several posters here have commented on: the earlier Studes had all sorts of frame issues on the older cars and by ca. 1961-61, they were fixed.

    What I'm getting at is it possible that the 'best' Studes; structurally speaking, are the 1962-64 Hawks and the 1962 Lark? Note that the final Hawks have a direct lineage all the way back to the 1953 Starlight(?) and the above Lark was also the last of the 1950's sedans re: curved windshield, etc. Read that the body/frame bugs had all been worked out with 1963 up having a different set of alleged issues. And the 1962 Larks all had the thicker frames.
    --------------------------------------

    Sold my 1962; Studeless at the moment

    Borrowed Bams50's sigline here:

    "Do they all not, by mere virtue of having survived as relics of a bygone era, amass a level of respect perhaps not accorded to them when they were new?"

  • #2
    Pierce, you make a good argument for the 1962 Lark line; it could well be the "best" postwar Studebaker as to structural integrity and projected longevity, especially a later-production car with a full-flow engine.

    It might be a tossup, though, between the 1961 Hawk and the GT Hawk series as to the C/K bodies. While the GT Hawk got a gauge or two stronger frame, the body itself lost the all-important "B" pillar. Just an opinion, of course, but I would think a 1961 Hawk would not loosen up and rattle as soon as would a GT Hawk driven under identical circumstances.

    Good discussion. BP
    We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

    G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

    Comment


    • #3
      No, they are not 'fixed'

      Its all about front suspension shocks, bushings, lube jobs and maintaining them. The cars that got maintained suffered less. Cars that did not, suffer alot. I have seen 59's 62's and 65's with cracks and problems...... There is no difference, they all get used up.

      Because of the design, and the added horsepower you are adding, you may want to tighten your body to frame mounts. At least check them so you can tell us how loose they were. The BODY on these cars helps tighten up the FRAME.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 1962larksedan View Post
        As several posters here have commented on: the earlier Studes had all sorts of frame issues on the older cars and by ca. 1961-61, they were fixed./Cut/

        No, not until 1962.

        And the 1962 Larks all had the thicker frames./Cut/
        Not exactly, the 2 Door Sedans still had the weak, thin 13 ga. frame all the way up to the last '66 Daytona Sport Sedans, and those turned out to be the worst, as I have personally seen the V-8's running and driving with the frame cracked at the front spring tower to cross member join, so bad that you could watch it bend and flex by just pushing down on the radiator surround panel, some were close to breaking in two.
        StudeRich
        Second Generation Stude Driver,
        Proud '54 Starliner Owner
        SDC Member Since 1967

        Comment


        • #5
          This low-mileage '63 Cruiser I have - it had cracks in alot of places on the body. Of course, the underside of this car looked as if the owner had taken it out in the boonies and drove it as if it were a 4X4. There were cracks at the tops of the B-pillars and where the window frames attach to the doors. The point where the snubber sits over the RA was almost completely broken away from the floor pan!
          Had a Wagonaire pass thru here that had cracks where the tubs met the floorpan and at the C-pillars where they blended in to the rear quarters. There were more places, but that's the ones I recall. So much for having that beefy X-frame added.
          No deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.

          Comment


          • #6
            Well... that settles that!! I'm keeping my Stude M5!!
            Roger Hill


            60 Lark Vlll, hardtop, black/red, Power Kit, 3 spd. - "Juliette"
            61 Champ Deluxe, 6, black/red, o/d, long box. - "Jeri"
            Junior Wagon - "Junior"

            "In the end, dear undertaker,
            Ride me in a Studebaker"

            Comment


            • #7
              I agree with Rich on the 66 Daytona Sport Sedan frames being terrible. I had mine welded by a certified welder & less than a year later it was cracking again. Finally did a swap with a frame from a 62 Daytona hardtop that was thicker.
              59 Lark wagon, now V-8, H.D. auto!
              60 Lark convertible V-8 auto
              61 Champ 1/2 ton 4 speed
              62 Champ 3/4 ton 5 speed o/drive
              62 Champ 3/4 ton auto
              62 Daytona convertible V-8 4 speed & 62 Cruiser, auto.
              63 G.T. Hawk R-2,4 speed
              63 Avanti (2) R-1 auto
              64 Zip Van
              66 Daytona Sport Sedan(327)V-8 4 speed
              66 Cruiser V-8 auto

              Comment


              • #8
                Can you guys tell me exactly where you saw cracks on the frames of these cars? Of course, I put mine away for the winter 75 miles away, five days ago!
                Bill Pressler
                Kent, OH
                (formerly Greenville, PA)
                Currently owned: 1966 Cruiser, Timberline Turquoise, 26K miles
                Formerly owned: 1963 Lark Daytona Skytop R1, Ermine White
                1964 Daytona Hardtop, Strato Blue
                1966 Daytona Sports Sedan, Niagara Blue Mist
                All are in Australia now

                Comment

                Working...
                X