170 vs 185

[Frank54]

Is there any history or documentation on the rationale behind Studebaker's decision to enlarge the Champion 6 from 170 to 185, then revert back to 170 a few years later? Seem puzzling to me.

[rbisacca]

I've also wondered about this. Especially since by 1960 Chevy and Ford had 6s in excess of 200 cu in. Rambler had a 196 and only Valiant and Studebaker had a 6 as small as 170. Perhaps it had something to do with fuel economy or durability but that's just a guess.

[PackardV8]

Is there any history or documentation on the rationale behind Studebaker's decision to enlarge the Champion 6 from 170 to 185, then revert back to 170 a few years later? Seem puzzling to me.

I've also wondered about this. Especially since by 1960 Chevy and Ford had 6s in excess of 200 cu in. Rambler had a 196 and only Valiant and Studebaker had a 6 as small as 170. Perhaps it had something to do with fuel economy or durability but that's just a guess.

FWIW, in 1960, when the Big Three decided to build compact cars, the Ford Falcon came with a 144", Corvair 140" and the Valiant had 170". It's easy to suppose in 1959 Studebaker saw these coming and decided to scale back to 170" to be seen as just as compact as the competition.

What none of the four foresaw is the American public had little interest in bare-bones econoboxes. Only when they began jazzing up the Corvair Monza with a deluxe interior and a turbocharger, the Falcon Sprint with a hardtop and convertible V8, both with 4-speed transmissions, did these begin to really gain popularity.

Too bad Studebaker didn't offer the Lark with a bucket seat interior, V8 and 4-speed in 1961.

Back to the late 170"; it is considered a bit smoother running than the 185" as it kept the huge main bearings but with the shorter stroke and less horsepower.

jack vines

[6hk71400]

Here is an interesting blog on the Studebaker OHV 6

https://www.hemmings.com/blog/article/quality-by-design/

I have over the years heard different reasons for going back to the 170 from the 185. One of them as I remember had to do with the fact that the later 170 was a stiffer engine with the enhanced bearings than the previous 170. This I believe was in a Popular Science article about the new Lark in December 1958(?) There was a difference of only 5 bhp from the 1954 to the 1959 170 but engineering was working on the OHV to stay in the competition. Remember in 1959 Studebaker and American Motors were the only ones using a flathead for the economy cars.

Hope this is not muddy waters but since I was 7 in 1959, I was not privy to Studebaker's engineering department. In grade school at the time, in Phoenix, I remember a girl whose father drove a new studebaker every year during this time. He was a test driver for Studebaker and she and I attended Alhambra Grade School (long gone).

Bob Miles

[rbisacca]

Of course I agree with what Jack said, but I never really considered the Lark a "compact" since it was larger than the Corvair , Falcon, and Valiant.

[PackardV8]

Of course I agree with what Jack said, but I never really considered the Lark a "compact" since it was larger than the Corvair , Falcon, and Valiant.

Was the Lark really larger? Let's do the numbers:

1960 Falcon - 109.5" wheelbase, 181" long
1960 Corvair - 108" wheelbase, 180" long
1960 Lark - 108.5" wheelbase, 175" long

jack vines

[Mike Van Veghten]

Ha...good one Jack.

Curb weights :

Falcon - 2259 (Hagerty)
Corvair - 2382 (axleaddict)
Lark - 2690 (carfolio/carnut)

So the Lark is a little puggier, but not by a lot.

Mike

[rbisacca]

Mike, I'm guessing 2690 is the weight of the VI. What's the weight of the VIII ?

[t walgamuth]

my 64 was well over 3000 with the 289. seems like maybe 3400?

[PackardV8]

The online data bases are not always accurate, but most of the published weights I'm seeing are less than 3,000#, for example, 2945#.

http://www.classiccardatabase.com/specs.php?series=8539&year=1964&model=106

jack vines

[t walgamuth]

I took my cruiser to the scales at the local scrap yard. Can't remember the weight though. Seems the champ was about 2700 in 1953, probably the same or near in 64. The cruiser had a bit longer wb did it not? so may be a bit more weight there.

[6hk71400]

When talking about Studebaker being larger, I think the context that everyone is missing is interior space. Try putting three adults across in a 1960 Falcoln, and the right front passenger would have to roll the window down and place his right arm holding on to the drip rail. Studebaker was able to advertise the Lark as room for six. The center section of the car was the same as 53-58 sedans, save for a little tweaking of the roof on the 58 models.

Bob Miles

[Frank54]

If I remember what I read years ago, the Lark was based on the full-size 4-door and 2-door sedan bodies that started way back in 1953 - they just shortened the front and rear "extensions". And wheelbase. Right? So I agree with rbisacca.

[PackardV8]

When talking about Studebaker being larger, I think the context that everyone is missing is interior space. Try putting three adults across in a 1960 Falcoln, and the right front passenger would have to roll the window down and place his right arm holding on to the drip rail. Studebaker was able to advertise the Lark as room for six. The center section of the car was the same as 53-58 sedans, save for a little tweaking of the roof on the 58 models. Bob Miles

If I remember what I read years ago, the Lark was based on the full-size 4-door and 2-door sedan bodies that started way back in 1953 - they just shortened the front and rear "extensions". And wheelbase. Right? So I agree with rbisacca.

Agree all you will, but full-size in '53 was compact by 1960. Follow behind a Studebaker today and notice how narrow they appear compared to everything else now on the road. The readily available dimensions of the 1960 cars say they are the essentially the same widths:

Falcon - 70"
Valiant - 70.4"
Lark - 71.4"

One area in which being a much older design the Lark did excel over the lower, more modern designs is seating position and ingress/egress. More height allows for higher seating position, more headroom and easier in/out..

Lark - 57.5"
Falcon - 54.5"
Valiant - 53"
Corvair - 51.3"

jack vines

[6hk71400]

Thanks for that interesting information Jack. I guess perception has always tinted views on reality.

Bob Miles