Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is there any difference between 62 & 63 4 door Lark shells?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is there any difference between 62 & 63 4 door Lark shells?

    Restoring a 62 Lark 4 door sedan. Is there any difference with the 4 door shells between a 62 and a 63? Found a real nice 63 four door shell today, but don't have the body parts manual to see if there is a difference. Please advise, thank you

  • #2
    Most of the body part numbers leave 63 by itself.
    Klif
    55 Speedster/Street Machine
    63 Avanti R2
    64 Convertible R1

    Comment


    • #3
      Gosh; there's all the difference in the world.

      Few 1962 body parts will fit a '63, espcially the center section; completely changed for 1963.

      From a body-parts standpoint, a '62 is a poor parts car for a '63, and vise-versa. BP
      We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

      Ayn Rand:
      "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

      G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

      Comment


      • #4
        As you said in a previous post, Bob, the 1963 makeover was possibly Studebaker's poorest return on the tooling costs.....

        Craig

        Comment


        • #5
          The most noticeable changes are the 1962 has a wrap-around windshield and an exposed center pillar between the front and rear doors.
          For what it's worth, I think the 1963 four door cars look nicer than the 1962 sedans.
          sigpic
          In the middle of MinneSTUDEa.

          Comment


          • #6
            Grille mesh and taillights will interchange,that's about it!
            Oglesby,Il.

            Comment


            • #7
              Joe- as mentioned, there are quite a few differences. The '63 was an effort to modernize the Lark, with the thinner B-pillars and move away from the wraparound front and rear windows. Another big change was a much busier and more complicated dashboard.

              Personally, I have always preferred the less modern-looking '62 body and the MUCH simpler dash. I believe I'm in the minority, though, and most prefer the '63 restyle. And for the record, all the front clip parts interchange, it's from the cowl back that's different.

              For comparison, here's a '62:



              Here's a '63:



              Here's an unknown year (gullwing model):

              Proud NON-CASO

              I do not prize the word "cheap." It is not a badge of honor...it is a symbol of despair. ~ William McKinley

              If it is decreed that I should go down, then let me go down linked with the truth - let me die in the advocacy of what is just and right.- Lincoln

              GOD BLESS AMERICA

              Ephesians 6:10-17
              Romans 15:13
              Deuteronomy 31:6
              Proverbs 28:1

              Illegitimi non carborundum

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 8E45E View Post
                As you said in a previous post, Bob, the 1963 makeover was possibly Studebaker's poorest return on the tooling costs.....

                Craig
                I have to agree although in all fairness; quite a bit of the tooling carried forward till the end, 1966.

                Originally posted by Milaca View Post
                The most noticeable changes are the 1962 has a wrap-around windshield and an exposed center pillar between the front and rear doors.
                For what it's worth, I think the 1963 four door cars look nicer than the 1962 sedans.
                Astetically (sp) speaking: I prefer the 1963 bodystyle as well although sheetmetal is a whole (same front doors all the way back to the 1955 1/2 4 door models) lot more available for the 1962 and I own a 1962 Y body.
                --------------------------------------

                Sold my 1962; Studeless at the moment

                Borrowed Bams50's sigline here:

                "Do they all not, by mere virtue of having survived as relics of a bygone era, amass a level of respect perhaps not accorded to them when they were new?"

                Comment


                • #9
                  As pointed out by Bob Andrew's posting, another update for 1963 was the change from having the steering wheel on the left-hand side to having it on the right-hand side.
                  As for more shared body parts, I believe the rear fenders and decklid are the same for both years.
                  sigpic
                  In the middle of MinneSTUDEa.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 8E45E View Post
                    As you said in a previous post, Bob, the 1963 makeover was possibly Studebaker's poorest return on the tooling costs.....

                    Craig
                    Maybe the 1960 vs 1961 can compete with the poorest return . A lot of money spent to bulit an almost identical (visually) car... (I own a 61)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Although the many, many upgrades that were on the '61 Larks translated perfectly to the '62 models. Most of the "new" features that everyone knows about the '62 Larks were actually incorporated in the '61 models.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hey Bob (Andrews), I like the gull-wing model you illustrated. Observers may have noticed the horn was in operation at the time the photo was taken.

                        George
                        george krem

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X