Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No 289s for '59 ?

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

  • Engine: No 289s for '59 ?

    It appears that Studebaker did not offer any 289s for '59 models. Anyone know of their reasoning for that? Thanks

  • #2
    Sure. Indoubtedly to simplify things so they could streamline Lark production as they were going great guns. BP
    We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

    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


    • #3
      Bob, makes sense. Thanks, Dan

      Comment


      • #4
        Larks in '59 more-so than later, were true COMPACT Cars, for economy not Hot Rods, no need for a more powerfull Engine requiring heavier duty more expensive drive line parts.

        The '59 Lark VI and Lark VIII's both had Model 23 Axles used for 6 Cyl. Engines in prior years, that would be a cost saving as well.


        All '59 V-8 "Studebaker" Trucks, (no Transtars were built) however, HAD 289's Standard...go figure!
        Last edited by StudeRich; 12-08-2011, 01:26 PM.
        StudeRich
        Second Generation Stude Driver,
        Proud '54 Starliner Owner
        SDC Member Since 1967

        Comment


        • #5
          Rumors have persisted for years that a few 59 Larks were built with 289s for very special customers. It certainly would not have been difficult, as the exterior dimensions of the 259 and 289 were the same, and as Rich notes, the 289 was standard equipment in all 1959 V8-powered trucks except for Scotsman models. The 289 returned in 1960 Hawks, and we know that at least a few 1960 Police Marshals were also built with the 289. It would be interesting to examine production orders to determine if there is a gap between the "P" engine numbers of the last 289-equipped 1958 car and the first 289-equipped 1960 car. That would surely be easier than examining the production orders of all 139,024 1959 Larks to see if they were equipped with a 289.
          Last edited by Skip Lackie; 12-08-2011, 01:45 PM. Reason: typo
          Skip Lackie

          Comment


          • #6
            Rich -

            Not entirely so (the axle comment)..
            Out of my two Larks, one (the 60) had a 23, the other (the 59) has a 44, with posi (twin traction), documented on paper somewhere in my archives... It was a mostly, fully loaded car when it left the factory.

            Mike

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mike Van Veghten View Post
              Rich -

              Not entirely so (the axle comment)..
              Out of my two Larks, one (the 60) had a 23, the other (the 59) has a 44, with posi (twin traction), documented on paper somewhere in my archives... It was a mostly, fully loaded car when it left the factory.
              Mike
              I did not say ALL, I mean't MOST, that must have been a Wagon. And in 1960 they went to the Model 27 on 259 Sedan's.

              Even "SOME", seems odd to me! I have owned 2 Lark Types that had 289 Engine swaps that ripped the spiders right out of the 27's.
              StudeRich
              Second Generation Stude Driver,
              Proud '54 Starliner Owner
              SDC Member Since 1967

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by StudeRich View Post
                I did not say ALL, I mean't MOST, that must have been a Wagon. And in 1960 they went to the Model 27 on 259 Sedan's.

                Even "SOME", seems odd to me! I have owned 2 Lark Types that had 289 Engine swaps that ripped the spiders right out of the 27's.
                The 289 didn't rip the spiders out the driver did..
                Candbstudebakers
                Castro Valley,
                California


                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by candbstudebakers View Post
                  The 289 didn't rip the spiders out the driver did..
                  My 1062 Lark had a Dana 27; needless to say, it's out from under the car since I went with a Ford 8" for a multitude of reasons.
                  --------------------------------------

                  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


                  • #10
                    I've looked at a lot of advertising from 1959 and Studebaker prided themselves on the Lark that it was truely compact, single headlights, fuel economy, etc. I find it interesting how the Lark evolved from 1959 to 1963 with the dawn of a slightly bigger body, dual headlights, and superchargers.
                    Chris Dresbach

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Chris_Dresbach View Post
                      I've looked at a lot of advertising from 1959 and Studebaker prided themselves on the Lark that it was truely compact, single headlights, fuel economy, etc. I find it interesting how the Lark evolved from 1959 to 1963 with the dawn of a slightly bigger body, dual headlights, and superchargers.
                      In all fairness: the 1962-63 Lark 4 doors have significantly more rear seat room than the older non Y bodies so at least 4" of additional overall length was put to good use.
                      --------------------------------------

                      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

                      Working...
                      X