Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I am looking at a 1962 Lark sedan.

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

  • I am looking at a 1962 Lark sedan.

    Greetings from a newbie here:

    I am looking at a 1962 Stude Lark 4 door sedan missing its engine.

    Car was equipped with a Six, 3 spd, and OD from what the owner told me.

    Long story short; is there a later model motor/trans combo that would be reasonably easy to swap in there?

    I was thinking a 305 Chevy TBI and 700R4 AT from a ca. 1990 Chevy pickup which would allow me to keep the present rear end (for now), it appears to be a Dana 27(?).

    Body is OK; the bottoms of all 4 doors are rusted and the windshield gasket is so rotted that the glass is literally peeling away from the basic body.

    Also; any ideas on disc brakes and/or power steering?

    I am looking at making this thing into a daily driver.
    --------------------------------------

    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?"

  • #2
    Howdy and welcome! I'm by no means an expert, but I'll tell you what I know and let the better men fill in the gaps

    There's no straight bolt-in alternative to the Stude drivetrain, although a small-block Chev is as easy as any. Studebakers actually used Chevy-based engines in 1965-'66, so it might be possible to track down the required frame mount adapters and such.

    Disc brake kits specifically for converting Studebakers are readily available from Turner Brakes and others; power steering is another thing altogether. Studes never had a true "power steering" setup like other makes; it was more of a "power assist" using a hydraulic ram to assist the steering effort. It might be tough to track down a functioning setup. On the other hand, a Studebaker with a good front end has very moderate steering effort, so you might find you don't need PS after all.

    The body rot is more of a concern, though. If the door bottoms are rotted out, and especially if the glass seals have failed, it's a good bet that the floor and trunk are in a bad way as well. The front of the floor is essential to body integrity, since the front doors depend upon the A-pillar being solidly connected to the floor; if the floor is bad, the rest of the body structure is compromised. However, Classic Enterprises does make reproduction floor and trunk pans that a good welder can fit in.

    Cheers!


    [img=left]http://members.cox.net/clarknovak/lark.gif[/img=left]

    Clark in San Diego
    '63 F2/Lark Standard
    http://studeblogger.blogspot.com - my blog
    www.studebakersandiego.com - San Diego Chapter website

    Clark in San Diego | '63 Standard (F2) "Barney" | http://studeblogger.blogspot.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Howdy and welcome! I'm by no means an expert, but I'll tell you what I know and let the better men fill in the gaps

      There's no straight bolt-in alternative to the Stude drivetrain, although a small-block Chev is as easy as any. Studebakers actually used Chevy-based engines in 1965-'66, so it might be possible to track down the required frame mount adapters and such.

      Disc brake kits specifically for converting Studebakers are readily available from Turner Brakes and others; power steering is another thing altogether. Studes never had a true "power steering" setup like other makes; it was more of a "power assist" using a hydraulic ram to assist the steering effort. It might be tough to track down a functioning setup. On the other hand, a Studebaker with a good front end has very moderate steering effort, so you might find you don't need PS after all.

      The body rot is more of a concern, though. If the door bottoms are rotted out, and especially if the glass seals have failed, it's a good bet that the floor and trunk are in a bad way as well. The front of the floor is essential to body integrity, since the front doors depend upon the A-pillar being solidly connected to the floor; if the floor is bad, the rest of the body structure is compromised. However, Classic Enterprises does make reproduction floor and trunk pans that a good welder can fit in.

      Cheers!


      [img=left]http://members.cox.net/clarknovak/lark.gif[/img=left]

      Clark in San Diego
      '63 F2/Lark Standard
      http://studeblogger.blogspot.com - my blog
      www.studebakersandiego.com - San Diego Chapter website

      Clark in San Diego | '63 Standard (F2) "Barney" | http://studeblogger.blogspot.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Another couple of issues. In regards to a 305 or other SBC, keep in mind older cars such as the Studebaker were not made with an HEI distributor in mind. You may find that the distributor may be right against the firewall. Also, isn't this an EFI engine? You'd have to find a way to mount the computer and merge the two wiring harnesses.

        With the 305 considered by Chevy lovers to be a boat anchor, you might want to look at using a 4.3L V6. These are easily converted to carburetor with Edelbrock intakes/carbs, and as with any SBC, an aftermarket distributor should fit with good firewall clearance. Just a suggestion, as the 700R4 would bolt up to it, it's a lighter engine, and it makes roughly the same horsepower. Just some suggestions. That 4.3L would use the same motor mount brackets as a SBC. The trans mount would have to be fabricated no matter which engine you use.

        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Tom - Valrico, FL

        1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $1755.45)

        Tom - Bradenton, FL

        1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $2514.10)
        1964 Studebaker Commander - 170 1V, 3-Speed w/OD

        Comment


        • #5
          Another couple of issues. In regards to a 305 or other SBC, keep in mind older cars such as the Studebaker were not made with an HEI distributor in mind. You may find that the distributor may be right against the firewall. Also, isn't this an EFI engine? You'd have to find a way to mount the computer and merge the two wiring harnesses.

          With the 305 considered by Chevy lovers to be a boat anchor, you might want to look at using a 4.3L V6. These are easily converted to carburetor with Edelbrock intakes/carbs, and as with any SBC, an aftermarket distributor should fit with good firewall clearance. Just a suggestion, as the 700R4 would bolt up to it, it's a lighter engine, and it makes roughly the same horsepower. Just some suggestions. That 4.3L would use the same motor mount brackets as a SBC. The trans mount would have to be fabricated no matter which engine you use.

          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Tom - Valrico, FL

          1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $1755.45)

          Tom - Bradenton, FL

          1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $2514.10)
          1964 Studebaker Commander - 170 1V, 3-Speed w/OD

          Comment


          • #6
            I was looking at a 305 due to it being a bit better on gas than a 350; and in a lightweight car in front of a 700R4, it would be plenty fast enough

            As for the distributor clearance issue; the FI motors use a narrower one vs. the vacuum advance assemblies.

            And I vastly prefer TBI over any carburetor due to its simplicity.......unlike Tuned Port and similar MPI systems.

            4.3L is a good motor but it would have all of the clearence issues vs. a SBC.......it would just have more radiator room. Besides, I like the 'V8' sound........
            --------------------------------------

            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


            • #7
              I was looking at a 305 due to it being a bit better on gas than a 350; and in a lightweight car in front of a 700R4, it would be plenty fast enough

              As for the distributor clearance issue; the FI motors use a narrower one vs. the vacuum advance assemblies.

              And I vastly prefer TBI over any carburetor due to its simplicity.......unlike Tuned Port and similar MPI systems.

              4.3L is a good motor but it would have all of the clearence issues vs. a SBC.......it would just have more radiator room. Besides, I like the 'V8' sound........
              --------------------------------------

              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


              • #8
                Don't know where you are but I have a rot-free 62 California Lark 4Dr with no drivetrain here in Michigan, $600 if your intrested. It would be cheaper then fixing your doors or floors.

                Kent

                Comment


                • #9
                  Don't know where you are but I have a rot-free 62 California Lark 4Dr with no drivetrain here in Michigan, $600 if your intrested. It would be cheaper then fixing your doors or floors.

                  Kent

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I don't know where you are located, but unless there is something special about that particular car you would probably be way ahead to wait and look for another. Four door cars in decent shape are not that expensive and in the long run you will be happier starting with a better car. Most of us older members know this from hard experience.

                    1952 Champion Starlight since October,1971. 1962 Daytona
                    since May, 2007.Searcy,Arkansas
                    "In the heart of Arkansas."
                    Searcy, Arkansas
                    1952 Commander 2 door. Really fine 259.
                    1952 2R pickup

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I don't know where you are located, but unless there is something special about that particular car you would probably be way ahead to wait and look for another. Four door cars in decent shape are not that expensive and in the long run you will be happier starting with a better car. Most of us older members know this from hard experience.

                      1952 Champion Starlight since October,1971. 1962 Daytona
                      since May, 2007.Searcy,Arkansas
                      "In the heart of Arkansas."
                      Searcy, Arkansas
                      1952 Commander 2 door. Really fine 259.
                      1952 2R pickup

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        A 4.3 TBI would be my choice. The 4.3 engine @ 425" should weigh about the same as the original Lark six at about 450#. And this would be approximately 150# lighter than a 305 Chevy. The 4.3 should also be better for keeping the steering light along with being easier on the brakes and the whole front suspension.

                        Cork - Moose Hoot, MN

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          A 4.3 TBI would be my choice. The 4.3 engine @ 425" should weigh about the same as the original Lark six at about 450#. And this would be approximately 150# lighter than a 305 Chevy. The 4.3 should also be better for keeping the steering light along with being easier on the brakes and the whole front suspension.

                          Cork - Moose Hoot, MN

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            quote:Originally posted by cortica37

                            A 4.3 TBI would be my choice. The 4.3 engine @ 425" should weigh about the same as the original Lark six at about 450#. And this would be approximately 150# lighter than a 305 Chevy. The 4.3 should also be better for keeping the steering light along with being easier on the brakes and the whole front suspension.

                            Cork - Moose Hoot, MN
                            You lost me. "The 4.3 engine @425"..." If you mean 425 cubic inch displacement, I don't know where that comes from. Without resorting to conversion tables, I believe that 4.3 litres is about 262 cubic inches. Ah ha - It just came to me. You must mean 425# (pounds) not 425" (inches). In that case, just a simple typo, I agree with you.

                            Gary L.
                            Wappinger, NY

                            SDC member since 1968
                            Studebaker enthusiast much longer
                            Gary L.
                            Wappinger, NY

                            SDC member since 1968
                            Studebaker enthusiast much longer

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              quote:Originally posted by cortica37

                              A 4.3 TBI would be my choice. The 4.3 engine @ 425" should weigh about the same as the original Lark six at about 450#. And this would be approximately 150# lighter than a 305 Chevy. The 4.3 should also be better for keeping the steering light along with being easier on the brakes and the whole front suspension.

                              Cork - Moose Hoot, MN
                              You lost me. "The 4.3 engine @425"..." If you mean 425 cubic inch displacement, I don't know where that comes from. Without resorting to conversion tables, I believe that 4.3 litres is about 262 cubic inches. Ah ha - It just came to me. You must mean 425# (pounds) not 425" (inches). In that case, just a simple typo, I agree with you.

                              Gary L.
                              Wappinger, NY

                              SDC member since 1968
                              Studebaker enthusiast much longer
                              Gary L.
                              Wappinger, NY

                              SDC member since 1968
                              Studebaker enthusiast much longer

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X