Who did they think they were fooling?

[Skip Lackie]

The July 15, 1958 issue of the S-P "Inside Facts" is devoted to the "new and more economical six-cylinder in [the] Model X'. (Model X was the name Studebaker gave to the new Lark before its introduction later that Fall.) "Studebaker-Packard engineers point out that Model X makes use of what is probably the most reliable valve configuration in the world -- the L head." "It's [sic] total piston displacement is 169.6 cubic inches."

If that number and head configuration sounds familiar to you, it should -- and should have sounded familiar to long-time Stude dealers, too. After all, it was the displacement of the Champion 6 up until it was stroked to 185 from 1955 to 1958. The all-new 1959 six-cylinder engine was really the reincarnation of the old Champion 6, with a few major improvements (like bearing size). The company deserves credit for doing the best they could with very limited resources -- but I wonder how many dealers were impressed with the description of the 170 ci flathead Champion 6 as "all-new".

[PackardV8]

In another life, I spent time as a marketing copywriter; the above is a less-than-stellar effort. (The use of "probably" is an absolute no-no!)

South Bend urban legend has it that Studebaker picked up on the industry info that the new-for-1960 Ford Falcon and Mopar Valiant compact competition would have 170" engines. Since that would seem to be becoming the standard for compact cars and since Studebaker dealers and customers were already familar with it, going back was an easy sell.

Also, many old Champion folk feel/felt the 185" was not as smooth, very little more powerful and not as durable as the original recipe 170", it was a no-brainer to go with the competition.

Since main bearing durability was not usually a problem with the original Champion design, the retaining the increased main bearing diameter while going back to the 170" has the penalty of increased bearing speed, friction and oil temperature; not much improvement there.

"but I wonder how many dealers were impressed with the description of the 170 ci flathead Champion 6 as "all-new".

We'll never know how many groans were given up by dealers reading that lame effort, but probably most felt the pain.

jack vines

[StudeRich]

What is even sadder is that the Lark VI with the wimpy 6, outsold the Lark VIII with a powerful and durable V8 Engine,
3 or 4 to One !

So by 1964-1966 Most Lark VI's were either scrapped or "out behind the barn" saved for "Someday" and the Lark VIII's were still out on America's Roads racking up well over 100,000 Miles !

[8E45E]

South Bend urban legend has it that Studebaker picked up on the industry info that the new-for-1960 Ford Falcon and Mopar Valiant compact competition would have 170" engines. Since that would seem to be becoming the standard for compact cars and since Studebaker dealers and customers were already familar with it, going back was an easy sell.

Also, many old Champion folk feel/felt the 185" was not as smooth, very little more powerful and not as durable as the original recipe 170", it was a no-brainer to go with the competition.

I wonder if Studebaker knew in the middle of 1958 Chrysler would be introducing their all-new OHV slant six in the Valiant. Like Studebaker, in 1958, Mopar sixes were all flatheads.

Craig

[Skip Lackie]

Well, in July 1958 Studebaker certainly knew that they would be introducing their new OHV 6 about 14 months later -- it had to be in final development by that time. So it's ironic that they touted the virtues of the flathead so vigorously. Beware of the ramblings on the PR man!

[Hawkeye]

I seem to remember the 1960 Ford Falcon and Mercury Comet actually had a 144 cubic inch in-line OHV six.
A mechanic friend of mine called it "the 23,000 mile engine", referring to it's rather short service life.
A high school buddy of mine had a Comet that was burning oil and smoking, so he went to our local discount auto parts store, Nationwise, and bought an overhaul kit including rings and rod bearings for $9.95 in a blister pack! He overhauled it with the block still in the car. Keep in mind that was 1968.
Laughingly called "the good old days".

[8E45E]

Well, in July 1958 Studebaker certainly knew that they would be introducing their new OHV 6 about 14 months later -- it had to be in final development by that time. So it's ironic that they touted the virtues of the flathead so vigorously.

I don't believe so. Around that time, Harold Churchill was insistent on his horizontally-opposed 139 cubic inch 4-cylinder in a 100"wb sub-compact that ultimately got scrapped by the BOD by 1960 when he got axed. The OHV conversion was a crash program with lack of development, which showed with its well-known problem with cracked heads.

Craig

[Jeff T.]

Well, ya know...

As someone who dragged a number of Larks home to scrap for parts from rural Nebraska around Lincoln, all of then were ohv sixes in various states of major failure, I didn't start finding V8s vehicles until I started looking for Champ trucks.

Things turned out how they turned out but I have wondered why Studebaker didn't stay with the 185 (ok the answer is above) yet could the lack of smoothness been help by ditching the six light duty flywheel/torque converter and just use the V8 parts, V8 flywheel vs six flywheel; V8 torque converter vs six torque converter and maybe a different balancer up front. They could have saved a few bucks by ditching the T96 and use one automatic transmission too. Also the rear axle thing, use the 27 or 44 but not both, while I'm at it how about the two series of brakes for the sixes and eights.

Like I said, things turned out how they turned out

Ah, what do I know

[6hk71400]

Just my take but I think they just wanted to sell cars

[6hk71400]

All of this is interesting conjecture but it does not make a whit of difference going back to 1959. Since we don't have a "way back machine with Mr Peabody and Sherman" all we have is history.

1959 was coming off a rather steep but short recession. All domestic automakers suffered downturns in production except the newly formed American Motors. The uptick was in economy transportation so that is my take on why so many (98,000) buyers of Studebaker Lark sixes were out there. Many new generation buyers, in my opinion, were not as familiar with Studebaker offerings. Many were not used to an underpowered car so within a few years many went back to the "flash and trash" of the big three.

My Dad's first new car was a 41 Champion so when the 59 Lark came out, he dumped a used Cadillac that his brother talked him into buying for a Lark deluxe six that we had for 9 years. Popular Science and Popular Mechanics touted the Lark as a "new" economy offering from Studebaker. Fast forward to 1966. As a car crazy teenager I knew my Dad had the new car bug and I got him a copy of Mechanix Illustrated that had a road test by Tom McCahill road testing a Chrysler Newport. Next thing I know there was a beige Newport 4 door. Mom still drove the Lark for another year then that was replaced by a Valiant Signet.

I don't think they were fooling anyone, just trying to sell cars in 1959

[Hawkeye]

One of Studebaker's inspirations for the Lark had to be the Rambler American. AMC in a desperate move for a quick low-priced offering pulled out of storage the body dies for the 1950 Nash Rambler in 1958, opened up the wheel wells, put on a new roof skin and grille, and voila! A "new compact car" was born. And it was a hit, giving them the first profit since AMC had been formed.
Unlike the "big three"'s mantra of "bigger, wider, longer is better", AMC knew there was a niche for "smaller is more responsible and practical". With a 196.5 cubic inch flathead six dating back to the 1940's it was cheap, economical and easy to drive. Also don't forget the VW. It was small, cheap, economical and underpowered too, dating back to 1939, but people bought 'em anyway.
Plus the English Sunbeams, Hillmans and Austins, the German Vauxhall and Opel were selling too and the growing trend was clear to Studebaker. Smaller cars were a niche in the marketplace they might have a chance in. The Lark was a miracle car, the little flathead was their only option for cheap and economical so they ran with it. Sure the "all-new" 6 was hyperbole, but most of their ads for the Lark were clever, informative and appealing.
My dad bought a new '62 Rambler American, and it still, in 1962 had that 1940's flathead 6. It was underpowered, but it was about $1650, when the Lark was $1776. So cheaper to buy, plus a nearby dealership won out over the Lark.
If you look at the mostly forgotten '61 Lark, the improvements over the '59-'60 are many, including the OHV six, of which, there were good ones and bad ones it seems.
I still remember that crummy little Falcon 144 cubic inch "23,000 mile" in-line six engine. Studebaker did more with a little, than GM, Ford and Chrysler did with a lot, many, many times.

[Milaca]

Seeing that Ford offered the Falcon with a 144 ci engine, Studebaker could have cut one of the engine banks from the 289 V8 (like International Harvester did with their V8 for use in the Scout) and had a slanted straight-four with 144.5 cubic inch. I imagine that such an engine isn't very well balanced, but it would have shared many parts with the existing V8.

[Hawkeye]

Yes, Pontiac did the same thing with the Pontiac V8 in the '61-'63 Tempest. Just cut off a bank.
But, again, it was quicker, simpler, and cheaper to stay with the existing flathead for Studebaker.
The Lark automobile itself was a "crash" program.
Little money and little time as always.