Pop Quiz: Why is this a late 1962 Lark V8?

[BobPalma]

OK, everybody's been taking stabs at the answer to this question, but nobody's hit it yet:

What confirms John Clements' engine in this thread is from a late 1962 Lark and nothing else?

http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...039#post714039

This is legitimate and not a trick: If you look at the photos and think about 1962 Larks versus Hawks or earlier or later cars, there is one clear distinction that tells us this is only a late 1962 Lark engine: What is it?

The first person to post the correct answer here in this thread wins their choice of:

1. One of the reprinted 1962 Lark Pace Car mailers I had done last year.

OR

2. Two NOS, never-used Studebaker Red Ball stationery envelopes.

Hint: The discriminator is readily visible in one photo, somewhat visible in another photo, barely visible in a third photo, and cannot be seen at all in two of the photos.

Post away! BP

[JoeHall]

The breather tube/PCV hole in the valley cover.

[r1lark]

It's a full flow block, BUT does not have the changes in the 'ventilation' that were introduced for '63, which include valve covers with filler/breather caps.

[BobPalma]

Joe and Paul: Thanks, but those items still don't confine it to Lark only; the key point is finding the discriminator that limits this engine to Lark only. BP

[SN-60]

The frame mounts (for the engine) are non C-K?

[ROADRACELARK]

62' was the last year for the Lark to use the oil Pressure switch for the "Idiot" light. Starting in 63 the Lark returned to the mechanical guage.

Dan Miller
Auburn, GA

[JoeHall]

I got it! The oil light sender for the Lark's "idiot light" instead of Hawk's manual guage

[r1lark]

The metal fuel pump 'bowl'.

[BobPalma]

BINGO: Dan Miller (RoadRaceLark) got the answer in Post #6, so he wins!

Joe Hall is also right, but Dan's post appeared first.

('Good brain teaser, eh? Thanks to all for scratching their heads.) BP

[r1lark]

BINGO: Dan Miller (RoadRaceLark) got the answer in Post #6, so he wins!

Joe Hall is also right, but Dan's post appeared first.

('Good brain teaser, eh? Thanks to all for scratching their heads.) BP

Wouldn't the '62 Champ have also used the oil pressure sender for the 'idiot' light?

[SN-60]

Wouldn't the '62 Champ have also used the oil pressure sender for the 'idiot' light?

Sometimes you just can't win, can You Bob!!!!

[BobPalma]

Wouldn't the '62 Champ have also used the oil pressure sender for the 'idiot' light?

Good point, Paul. In a couple places, I tried to steer the conversation to passenger cars, and should have included trucks, as applicable. Had that point been made, I would have called that a winner, too. BP

[r1lark]

Good point, Paul. In a couple places, I tried to steer the conversation to passenger cars, and should have included trucks, as applicable. Had that point been made, I would have called that a winner, too. BP

That's why I said the metal fuel pump bowl. '62 Larks used the metal bowl, while the '62 Hawk used the older glass bowl according to the parts book.

[BobPalma]

That's why I said the metal fuel pump bowl. '62 Larks used the metal bowl, while the '62 Hawk used the older glass bowl according to the parts book.

Another good point, Paul, but with the way they changed things around during every model year, I wouldn't want to say that all 1962 Hawks used a glass bowl and all 1962 Larks used a metal bowl! BP

[Roscomacaw]

In the thread that inspired this, I noted that the Lark would've been the only one of that year to use the frame mount brackets that are hanging from that engine. This would qualify it as a Lark-destined unit.