Comparing model year Larks and Lark types--your preferences and why

[drpreposterous]

This sort of question naturally is usually subjective--what are your Lark model year preferences and why? I've always had a feeling (based on nothing more than that) that the '59 to 60s were of a stouter construction. No idea if there's any merit in that. Looks wise, I like 'em all, but have a particular fondness for the '59 to '62 dashes--they look to hold together better over the years. I love a early gen hardtop but am equally fond of '64-66 four-doors! My ultimate pick would be a '62 Lark Daytona with a four-speed and V8. Eager to see what you like.

[tcabman]

My comments would be much the same as Yours . BUT if I had too choose a particular it would be the 64 Lark types, I like the new clean/crisp/seamless look some of the new sheet metal added !

[oilnsteel]

Get them all. Always have more than just one Studebaker. JT

[StudeNewby]

I'm with Tcab: I have a preference for the '64s, though I have yet to own a '64 Lark type (I do own a '64 Champ, however). I did own a '62 hardtop which was a lot of fun. The wagons hold a soft spot for me, especially the later years, but I wouldn't hesitate to own any Lark.

[StudeRich]

I can see this is going to be one of those "Everybody has a different Opinion" Deals for sure.

I like almost All Larks, with a preference for the "Latest and Greatest" of South Bend's offerings; the '64's,
with the exception of the 1962's.
It's that rear Glass and Roof design, rear quarter windows/doors plus the Grille Mesh that just doesn't do it for me.

Sorry, Bob A.

[Milaca]

My favorite is 1963. No more outdated wrap-around windshield, new dual-chamber master cylinder, alternator, great looking dash panel, nice upholstery options, back-up lights blend in with the rear stainless trim, high-performance options available, good heating and defrost system, and the Daytona side-trim looks great whether it be a hardtop, convertible or station wagon. Oh yeah, it was the first year for a Wagonaire! The sliding roof is cool!

I agree with StudeRich, not a fan of the 1962 Larks. I know they look very similar to a 1963 at first glance, but the beauty is in the details of the 1963 Larks.

With that said, I very much like the 1959-61 and the 1964 Lark-types. The 1965 is lacking hardtops and convertibles (and Stude power), otherwise they are fine. The 1966 looks a bit bland/frumpy to me, perfect fit for Aunt Bea.

[drpreposterous]

I hear ya, and agree the '62 is somewhat homely compared to other years (part of why it I have a soft spot for it in my heart). But I get soured at even nice '64-66s, which so often have warped and/or sagging looking dashes--something the '62 never seems to have.

[556063]

When I met my wife, she knew little about Studebakers. She looked at my Turning Wheels 30+ years ago infrequently. One day, she brought me a photo of a 1960 Lark Convertible, Jonquin Yellow. She said that would be her Studebaker if I ever found it for her.

Over the next decade or so, I tried to get her interested in other Lark Convertibles that were for sale. No sale, even a yellow dual headlight 61. She kept telling me "Must be stubby". Only the 60 satisfied her, and only a 60 would do.

This is totally subjective, but it's obvious to me the original styling of the 59-60 was a female favorite. As we moved through the Mercedes inspired Larks, they lost their "cuteness". Did that help or hurt? 62+ Larks aren't as likely to be mistaken for Ramblers. May be a clue there.

I found her Studebaker for her eventually. My personal favorite is the 64-66. But that's my opinion.

[64LarkLover]

I've always been a fan of the 1964 sedans-a really crisp and sharp body update from the 63 offering, and depending on the model some really plush interiors were available. It was truly a marvel of development Studebaker's financial situation at the time. I vote-More than they promised!

[Noxnabaker]

I love 59-60, the -61's rear window is way ugly.
The -64 2 door post is another fav but a 65-66 chebbybaker I "would have to do something about", but that's possible.
The 62-63 I find strange with the "oldish" front & new rear part + the tail lights & rear fender design makes it look "-62 Dodge-ish" (thou I really like that on the Dodge) & I've always thought the round tail lights is one thing that makes some people think it's a Rambler.
Interiorwise I prefer the later dashboard design.

[mbstude]

I’ve owned a ‘61 4 door, ‘62 4 door, ‘63 2 door and ‘63 hardtop, and a ‘64 wagon. And 3 different ‘58 sedans which are Larks with a bunch of extra crap.

The ‘61’s are the ones I liked best. You get the cowl vent and hanging pedals, but you still have a steel dash and the thicker windshield / door posts. The interiors for ‘61 were nicely done (ever seen the embroidered Lark emblems on the Regal seat upholstery?). AC that was integrated into the cowl vent / Climatizer system. You have a similar overall “look” of the early Larks with a lot of nice mechanical upgrades.

The one exception are ‘61 Cruisers.. Those cars are just awkward to look at.

I don’t like the molded vinyl dashes in the 63-66 cars, and the windows are too big (too much “greenhouse” effect).

Fun question. Everyone has their favorites.

[Hallabutt]

I was 15yrs old when the 1959 Lark came out. To put it bluntly I hated it. Short, stubby, squared off little thing, the styling reminded me of Tom Depsey's kicking shoe. It was just too tall for it's length. I agree for some reason women seem to prefer stubby ugly little cars, ergo the fist gen Lark. Only a face that a mother could love. In addition I'm not particularly found of the seats or the wheel position in the first gen Lark. Then there is the dash-the less said the better. For all of it's failings I love my all original 1960 four door wagon-"Humphrey." I honestly believe that the overwhelming positive response the Humphrey gets is that he is so ugly that he is cute (not my words).

The 62 was the first year that the lengthened face lift seemed to do justice to the concept. Without sacrificing much the profile it just looked more streamlined. And I do like the Ford style round taillights, but with four eyes (duel headlights) the 62 will never be the prom queen. The dash had a more finished look and just seemed better thought out then the first gen. With the bucket seat inclusion and the addition to the four speed trans it was becoming more then a cheap economy car. Then there is the interiors that just seemed to fall apart-mystifying! On measure I like the 62 but it still seemed to be a work in progress. Our collection contains two 1962 Daytona convertibles. Why two? One is a matter of sentiment for the previous owner who wanted me to have it and the other was just opportunity-no logic to it though.

1963 is my favorite year for the Lark. The obvious upgrades to the model are palpable. From the restyled windshield to the upgraded interior, including the dash, to the performance upgrades it just shouted out that the Lark was no longer an afterthought. Our collection includes a 1963 Daytona htp-my father's last car and absolutely my favorite Studebaker tour car. I have been all over the western part of the country in "Malarkey." He was supposed to be my only Lark, thus the name, but he was such a good car he opened my eyes to what I believe to be the best balanced post-war Studebaker. He has never let me down or left me stranded.

I like the later Lark styling of the later models, but honestly the finished look made the Lark type a follower again. It just looked too much like everything else that was coming out of Detroit. I've never owned a Lark newer then 1963. Maybe if I had I would appreciate it more. I'll leave the comments about the later models to more qualified owners.

[ivorydan]

The 59 and 60 Lark Hardtops were the pure development design, with a decidedly European sophisticated appearance. Each year after that, the design was compromised more and more, with boxier and boxier no- budget add-ons and modifications , in an attempt to keep up with Big Three styling changes, reminiscent of what happened to the 53 in subsequent years.

[BRUCESTUDE]

I previously owned, and restored, a ‘64 Daytona 4 speed hardtop, which was the epitome of South Bend built Lark types. When I retired in ‘15, I found my ‘60 4door sedan, which I rebuilt mechanically. Of all the Studes I’ve owned I love driving my Lark VIII the best; a perfect size for city driving, and very stable on the highway! And, as mentioned above, it gets more positive comments about how “cute” it is, mainly from women.
I’ve also grown to appreciate the minimalist styling and ‘50s build quality.

[Buzzard]

Brian,
Well I am definitely prejudiced as I own a one owner (prior to me) 1959 Hardtop Regal with a V8 Automatic. It only has 25,000 original miles and is in stellar condition in Tahiti Coral with Arctic white top. ( BP stated that it may be a one of one as that color was only on brochures). I love the common sense simplicity of the design and think the designers hit a home run even with their limited resources. But as you stated, the topic is definitely subjective.
Bill

[Bob Andrews]

My favorite is definitely the 62; hardtop and convertible only, though. I think the ugliest Lark ever was the 62 four-door sedan. But I like the 62 for a different reason.

I grew up in the car business, my training is in body/restoration/collision repair. I owned all the muscle cars when they were still affordable. Right after I got out of high school, I used to buy them run down, restore them, drive them a while, sell, and repeat. To me, they were all beautiful. And public opinion seems to agree; any car show has a never ending supply of big three beauties. After a few decades of having them, though, I started to get bored and became interested in the more oddball, obscure offerings; AMC, Nash, Hudson, and eventually, Studebaker.

My earliest memories of the used car business was late 60s. My father would not have anything to do with a Studebaker on the lot. It had nothing to do with the cars one way or the other, the reason was that they were thought of as stodgy old peoples cars and nobody wanted to buy them. It was about 2002 when I bought my first Studebaker. As I learned about them, I fell in love with the history of the company, and the oddball lineup of cars. The reason I prefer the 62 is the exact reasons that most people don’t like them: a little more weird and outdated compared to their contemporaries. I love the goofy upright look, wraparound front and rear windows, and the general stodgy styling. The 62 dash may look a little cheap with their parts store-looking gauges, but they are a lot simpler and cleaner.

I had several different Lark types, and enjoy them all. The one I really wanted was a 62 hardtop, V8 four-speed, Ermine white with red and white bucket seats. I always figured I would build one. So I bought a complete car that was in rough shape, and a completely rust-free body tub. Well, years went by, and RA took away my ability to do those kind of jobs anymore. Then a few summers ago, I found the exact car I wanted, already in great shape! I bought it, and have enjoyed it now for a few summers. It is currently for sale, as I am downsizing my personal collection. I will be sad to see it go, but that’s OK, we’re all just temporary caretakers anyway. And I achieved the goal of owning the Studebaker I wanted the most.