Ramblers vs. Studebakers

[Studedude1961]

Hi all. Back in the late 1950s and early 1960s car magazines like Motor Trend used to lump makers of economy cars together for comparison tests etc. Sometimes Ramblers and Studebakers were profiled in the same testing group. A few years ago I was fortunate enough to own a 1964 Cruiser and a 1964 Rambler Classic at the same time. When the weather was nice I drove one or another to work...about a 10 mile round trip. I drove the Rambler even when the weather wasn't nice since it was not worth a whole lot on the market (but it was worth alot to me). It was interesting comparing both cars and I liked each "best" for different reasons. Has anyone else in the group owned (or own) two comparable cars from both automakers? If so, what are some of your observations as to build quality, performance, handling, styling etc.?

Studedude1961
--1963 Cruiser

[N8N]

Years ago, I owned a '67 Dodge Dart, and at the same time my girlfriend had a '69 Valiant (pretty similar car in comparison to a '62 Lark I would say that the Lark has way better brakes and ride; probably the 15" tires vs. 13" had something to do with that. Also the Dart was a six and the Lark is a V-8 so it is not an entirely fair comparison.

The handling is pretty much comparable; both cars seem to be pretty good handling cars for their era.

I will say that the steering box on the Dart/Valiant was much nicer than the very slow box in the Lark (all cars had manual steering)

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
62 Daytona hardtop

http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

[larkvi]

Well, not at the same time but I own a '63 Lark and have owned a '62 Falcon and a '66 Mustang (which is, after all, a Falcon in fancy dress).

Hindsight being 20:20, I like the Lark far more than I did the Falcon. As maligned as the OHV 170 six is in the Stude community, it's a better performer than the Ford 144 six. The Lark has better brakes, better instrumentation, and more passenger room - not to mention that it doesn't have those d***ed awful vacuum wipers!

My Mustang had a 289 and so was a far better performer than either; even so, it was not as comfortable a car for long-distance driving as the Lark.

[studegary]

Not Ramblers and Studebakers, but my father-in-law turned his '63 Cruiser in on a new '64 Ambassador hardtop because the Studebaker leaked at the A-pillar. At the same time, '64 model year, my father and I each bought '64 Fury hardtops new. The '64 Ambassador had many mechanical problems and the seats split and there were other interior problems within a couple of years. My father and father-in-law were about the same age, drove the same distance to work, each only had one car at a time and kept their cars garaged. My father replaced his '64 Plymouth with a '75 Dodge. The Plymouth was in better shape then than the Ambassador was when a few years old. I only kept my '64 Plymouth for a year and three days, 32K miles, and traded it in on a '65 Sport Fury. I never owned a new '64 Studebaker, but I have owned at least seven, used, some low mileage, 1964 Studebakers. In my experience, the Studebakers were better than the Ramblers/Ambassador, but not as good as the Plymouths.

Gary L.
1954 Commander Starliner (restomod)
1959 DeLuxe pickup (restomod)

[Scott]

Well, maybe mechanically, but what about Plymouth styling and Studebaker styling - comparing the same model years? The sides of the '64 Plymouths look pretty fussy to me. The grille looks like a Ford or Mercury rip-off.

[studegary]

quote:Originally posted by N8N

Years ago, I owned a '67 Dodge Dart, and at the same time my girlfriend had a '69 Valiant (pretty similar car in comparison to a '62 Lark I would say that the Lark has way better brakes and ride; probably the 15" tires vs. 13" had something to do with that. Also the Dart was a six and the Lark is a V-8 so it is not an entirely fair comparison.

The handling is pretty much comparable; both cars seem to be pretty good handling cars for their era.

I will say that the steering box on the Dart/Valiant was much nicer than the very slow box in the Lark (all cars had manual steering)

nate

--

I have owned many Darts and Valiants. I also had a 1969 Valiant, but mine was a lot different than your girlfriend's car. Mine was a national winning Signet with 273 V8, Torqueflite, ps, pb and 14 inch wheels - all factory. When comparing brands, it is important to compare similar models and equipment. Look at the span of models and equipment/engines that Studebaker had in 1963-1964.

Gary L.
1954 Commander Starliner (restomod)
1959 DeLuxe pickup (restomod)

[Blue 15G]

My brother had a '62 Ambassador that he got from my Uncle, who was going to trade it in for a leftover '67 Ambassador (this was in early '68). The Ambassador had the AMC 327 V-8. It was smooth and quiet and the car was well finished inside. Several years later I bought a used '64 Daytona Hardtop in very good condition. It had a 259 V-8. My brother drove it and said that it was not unlike the Rambler in many ways. Both were good cars.

It's funny how, back then, a lot of people who only drove "big 3" products would confuse the Ramblers and Studebakers and couldn't tell them apart except for the nameplates. Yet the construction of the two makes was quite different underneath. Cats and Dogs are more alike.

[studegary]

quote:Originally posted by Scott

Well, maybe mechanically, but what about Plymouth styling and Studebaker styling - comparing the same model years? The sides of the '64 Plymouths look pretty fussy to me. The grille looks like a Ford or Mercury rip-off.

Having owned a '64 Plymouth Fury hardtop and a '64 Studebaker Daytona hardtop, I don't see your point. Both cars were fairly slab sided and both had a flat aluminum grille.

Gary L.
1954 Commander Starliner (restomod)
1959 DeLuxe pickup (restomod)

[MarkC]

I owned several late 50's, early 60's Ramblers and comparable year Studebakers at the same time, many years ago. They had vastly different personalities and characteristics. Early unibody Rambers rusted horribly, but this improved dramatically when they began dipping the bodies in primer beginning with the '58 models. The bodies were pretty sound, but the torque-tube rear suspension (on the 108" and 117" wheelbase cars back then) was criticized by the motoring press and the front end geometry was largely hypothetical until '62 when the single-lower ball joint suspension was introduced. The whole '63 line won Motor Trend's "Car of the Year", which AMC milked for maximum marketing advantage. I liked the old first generation AMC V8 (250, 287, 327). It was heavy and had small valves and ports, but it also had forged internals and was a durable workhorse (except for the timing chain and gears). Build quality was average, but at least where they missed with the paint gun, there was likely to still be primer. Aside from the unique '57 Rambler Rebel (which posted the second fastest 0-60 time Motor Trend recorded that year and was bested only by the fuel injected Corvette), performance wasn't a major thrust for AMC in the 50's and early 60's (survival was) and their management and engineering focus was very conservative.

Studebakers products and management of that era are well known here, and I remember several items both in feel and function that were noticably different. I very much liked Studebakers use of metal and glass where plastic may have been used by others. (Ford even used cardboard for heater boxes in some models of that era.) Design and materials Studebaker used, though often conservative, were honest and integrated, and rarely overstated. Workmanship seemed better to me, as if there was more pride taken in the work done, regardless of the model. (I never owned an Avanti, so I can't comment authoritatively on them.) I loved the concept of the Jet Thrust cars, and will always regret selling the one I had in high school. Lastly, deserved or not, my peers wondered about the Studebakers I owned back then, but they mostly snickered at the AMC's. In that era I owned a great many orphans, including Corvairs and even a few British and Italian imports, nameplates that have long vanished from our shores. And, I loved them all.

MarkC, 64 Y8
Working in Spokane, WA

[JBOYLE]

When I was a kid, my dad bought a new 1963 Rambler Classic 770 sedan w/V-8 and factory air. We still had it when I learned to drive 8-9 years later.

As I recall it had plenty of power, the steering was a bit heavy but braking was good (but I didn't have much else to compare it to other than the new Mercs at Drivers Ed and dad's 69 Ford LTD with a 390).

I haven't driven a comparable Lark or Daytona...but my Avanti seems much nicer...as you all know it's on the same basic platform as the Larks...but I also realize that it cost about twice what our highly optioned Rambler did in 63....so it had better be nicer.

And at the risk of seeming disloyal...in body structure and especially interior appointments (just compare the dash boards...no comparison)it seems to me it was a more solid car than the Larks and Daytonas I've seen.

PS. I wouldn't mind having a 63 Rambler Classic wagon (with factory air) now...it would be a good basset hound hauler...

63 Avanti R1 2788
1914 Stutz Bearcat
(George Barris replica)

Washington State

[studeclunker]

I had a '59 rambler custom. I can't compare engines as it had a six, embarrasingly slooooooow. Otherwise it was very favourably comaprable to my studebaker sedan. I really liked the car. Push button transmission, nice interior. Just a nice car that was begging and pleading for a v8. In fact, I think the rambler may have had a little more head room. Oh yes, there was just one more complaint. It had unibody const. None of the shops in town would put a hitch on it. I had a devil of a time finding someone who finally did.

Lotsa Larks!
K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Studebaker!
Ron Smith

[Green 53]

My first new car was a 59 Rambler Rebel. 4:44 rear end and stick. I only lost two drag races with it. A 59 348 TriPower Chev and a 58 Golden Commando Plymouth with dual 4's. Front end went to pot in 25K miles. Traded for a new 60 Valiant and then a new 62 Plymouth Sport Fury convertible. I have had three 64 Daytona hardtops. A 259,289, and an R2. Currently have the 64 R1 Daytona convertible. The Stude's are better.
Denny L

[Roscomacaw]

For quite some time, I owned both Ramblers AND Studebakers thru the years. My first "Rammer" was a 66 Classic convertible that I earned by fixing some guy's Triumph Spitfire. The car was in nice shape (this was about '77 or '78)mainly because it wasn't that old. It needed it's T-35 "Flash-o-matic" rebuilt before I could drive it, but that was really a cheap fix at the time. I R & R'd the tranny myself and it was realtively easy since that little aluminum unit didn't weigh much at all.[^](Studes used the same basic tranny behind their 6s from 62-on)
That convertible was REALLY nice. Quiet, peppy 232 6cylinder had good motive power and the ride was nice. That unibody was impressive in how quiet it was (and remember - this was a convertible!)
Comapred to the Studes - the Studes just felt/feel more "substantial". I don't know why, but they just felt like more car than the comprable-sized Rammer.
I stumbled upon a '61 American convertible after I'd owned the '66 for a time and I bought it for like a hundred bucks or so. It was cheap because it's 196 had a knock in it. I yanked that engine and went thru it. It was a sweet runner after that. But three ragtops was a bit of overkill (I also owned a 60 Lark ragtop at the time![]) and I sold the '61 American to some kid for a few dollars more than I had in it. My ex sold the 66 ragtop after she and I parted in '81.
Fast forward 2s years and 1983 found me in Los Angeles and looking for a car for my new wife to drive. I found a genuine "cream puff" of a '66 Classic station wagon for $600 bucks. Man, this pampered baby had led a charmed life before I found it. 18 years old and it had only accumulated 33K miles along the way. The wife grew fond of it in short order. We drove that thing well into the 90s before it started to show the rough treatment it had gotten after I started using it as a go-to-work ride. That and taking it out into the desert on occassion![:0] It ended it's life supplying parts for other Rammers. By then, I'd accumulated quite a flock of Studes and I was driving a Stude car or my Transtar primarily.
Having bought and sold Rambler parts as a means of secondary income for quite some time, (and having owned a few too) I've developed great respect for them. I do think that as the 60s drew to a close, the character of the product changed and it didn't appeal to me as much. Once they got entwined with Renault, I considered them disposable appliances at best. Of course - your results may vary!

Miscreant at large.

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President 2-dr
1955 President State
1951 Champion Biz cpe
1963 Daytona project FS

[redvoyager]

In 76 as a young airman I had a 65 Rambler wagon. It was a good solid car and I liked it better than the Lark I later had. It did though, still use an enclosed driveshaft which made changing the clutch a lot more difficult. The Lark seemed underpowered to me with its 6. I felt the Rambler could have handled add on air better than the Stude 6.

Norm
58 Transtar 1 ton dually PU
58 2 door wagon
Davenport, Fl

[ddub]

I note some other replys do not include Ramblers so I will share my Stude comparisons, about a decade earlier than most I see. In high school (late 50's) I drove a 49 Commander with OD. My best friend had a 50 Ford V-8, no OD. The Stude was superior in every way except attracting girls, could have been the drivers. It was quicker, may have had a higher top speed, never tested that. Felt more solid, rode better, nicer interior.

My parents drove a 53 New Yorker but we still had a 48 Olds straight 8 (my dad never sold a car 'til it was time to junk it). The Commander was in most ways a better car. The Olds was still a prewar design but it did have Hydramatic.

Later I had a 53 Commander K. The Chrysler was a much more substantial car, had a more solid feel better interior finish, better ride. Of course the Stude was much better looking and I liked the auto trans in the Stude better than that in the New Yorker which still required a clutch to shift from Dr to R or Low to Dr and had a very slow upshift from 2 to 3.

53 Commander Hardtop
64 Champ 1/2 ton
WA state