Engine: No 289s for '59 ?

[CarCrosswordDan]

It appears that Studebaker did not offer any 289s for '59 models. Anyone know of their reasoning for that? Thanks

[BobPalma]

Sure. Indoubtedly to simplify things so they could streamline Lark production as they were going great guns. BP

[CarCrosswordDan]

Bob, makes sense. Thanks, Dan

[StudeRich]

Larks in '59 more-so than later, were true COMPACT Cars, for economy not Hot Rods, no need for a more powerfull Engine requiring heavier duty more expensive drive line parts.

The '59 Lark VI and Lark VIII's both had Model 23 Axles used for 6 Cyl. Engines in prior years, that would be a cost saving as well.


All '59 V-8 "Studebaker" Trucks, (no Transtars were built) however, HAD 289's Standard...go figure!

[Skip Lackie]

Rumors have persisted for years that a few 59 Larks were built with 289s for very special customers. It certainly would not have been difficult, as the exterior dimensions of the 259 and 289 were the same, and as Rich notes, the 289 was standard equipment in all 1959 V8-powered trucks except for Scotsman models. The 289 returned in 1960 Hawks, and we know that at least a few 1960 Police Marshals were also built with the 289. It would be interesting to examine production orders to determine if there is a gap between the "P" engine numbers of the last 289-equipped 1958 car and the first 289-equipped 1960 car. That would surely be easier than examining the production orders of all 139,024 1959 Larks to see if they were equipped with a 289.

[Mike Van Veghten]

Rich -

Not entirely so (the axle comment)..
Out of my two Larks, one (the 60) had a 23, the other (the 59) has a 44, with posi (twin traction), documented on paper somewhere in my archives... It was a mostly, fully loaded car when it left the factory.

Mike

[StudeRich]

Rich -

Not entirely so (the axle comment)..
Out of my two Larks, one (the 60) had a 23, the other (the 59) has a 44, with posi (twin traction), documented on paper somewhere in my archives... It was a mostly, fully loaded car when it left the factory.
Mike

I did not say ALL, I mean't MOST, that must have been a Wagon. And in 1960 they went to the Model 27 on 259 Sedan's.

Even "SOME", seems odd to me! I have owned 2 Lark Types that had 289 Engine swaps that ripped the spiders right out of the 27's.

[candbstudebakers]

I did not say ALL, I mean't MOST, that must have been a Wagon. And in 1960 they went to the Model 27 on 259 Sedan's.

Even "SOME", seems odd to me! I have owned 2 Lark Types that had 289 Engine swaps that ripped the spiders right out of the 27's.

The 289 didn't rip the spiders out the driver did..

[1962larksedan]

The 289 didn't rip the spiders out the driver did..

My 1062 Lark had a Dana 27; needless to say, it's out from under the car since I went with a Ford 8" for a multitude of reasons.

[Chris_Dresbach]

I've looked at a lot of advertising from 1959 and Studebaker prided themselves on the Lark that it was truely compact, single headlights, fuel economy, etc. I find it interesting how the Lark evolved from 1959 to 1963 with the dawn of a slightly bigger body, dual headlights, and superchargers.

[1962larksedan]

I've looked at a lot of advertising from 1959 and Studebaker prided themselves on the Lark that it was truely compact, single headlights, fuel economy, etc. I find it interesting how the Lark evolved from 1959 to 1963 with the dawn of a slightly bigger body, dual headlights, and superchargers.

In all fairness: the 1962-63 Lark 4 doors have significantly more rear seat room than the older non Y bodies so at least 4" of additional overall length was put to good use.