1962 to 1964 Studebaker Larks

The 1963 Standard Line-up Mid-year Introduction

Turning Wheels January 1999

Most (nearly all) of this section comes from the Fred Fox Feature Article, page 18 & 19.

Last month (TW Dec 1998) we introduced the 1963 Lark* line, compared it to the 1962 models and explained Studebaker President Sherwood Egberts great hopes for the 1963 model year.  It was explained that he had made great strides in 1962, and this in a year when Studebaker and Studebaker’s employees suffered through a tough strike.

*Again, it is acknowledged that the 1963 Cruiser was not officially a Lark, but general reference, it is usually included as part of the 1963 Studebaker Lark Line.

With late model year sales of 1962 Larks and Hawks looking good, it was decided that the August 27th start-up of 1963 Lark and Hawk production would be at 80 cars per hour.  This was soon adjusted to 70 cars per hour.  By October 1962, Studebaker’s officials were starting to worry.  Sales were not coming up to expectations.  Concerning this time period, Loren Pennington wrote the following in Studebaker—Less Then they Promised: “The 1963 model was having launch troubles, and the Auto Division losses were again nearing the two million [dollar] a month level.  By early November dealer orders were at 300-350 a day, no where near enough to sustain the seventy per hour rate.” What had happened?  Many factors were at play, some definable, some elusive.  Three major ones were the following:

1. As in 1956-58, many potential car buyers were well aware of Studebaker’s precarious financial position.  Few people wanted to buy a potential orphan.

    

2. Although Studebaker put a lot of effort and money into upgrading the styling of the 1963 models, the results, as mentioned last month, were not that noticeable to the general public.  Except for Volkswagen buyers, most Americans in the ’60s demanded that the cars they bought be “up to date” in their styling.  It has often been wondered how Studebaker would have fared if they had introduced the 1964 styling in 1963.

    

3. Because of Studebaker’s low production and high overhead, it was impossible for them to be competitive-price wise with comparable compacts from the Big Three and still make a profit.  Studebaker’s long time attack on the price differential was to try to build a better styled and better engineered car with more innovative features.  We are the beneficiaries of this “try harder” approach, but in 1963 a dual master cylinder and a sliding roof station wagon were not enough to put the company in the black.

Think of the frustration Studebaker executives were experiencing in the fall of 1962.  What to do?  Still on the board of directors was Harold Churchill, Studebaker Packard’s former president.  We do not have first hand information on this, but there is a good chance that Churchill proposed the idea of offering a low priced, stripped down model that could be listed under the lowest priced models offered by Chevrolet and Ford.  With some success, he had done the very same thing in May 1957 when S -P introduced the Scotsman line.

Whether or not Churchill suggested it, the decision was made to bring out a low end line called the Standard.  A Sales Letter (No.120, Nov. 7,1962) sent out by L. E. Minkel said that production of the Standard would start “approximately December 3.” Initially called the Lark Standard, the new line was later, in most cases, referred to as just being the Studebaker Standard.  The Standard featured “`Studebaker” front fender nameplates instead of the “LARK” ones used on Daytona, Custom, Regal and Heavy Duty models.  This writer remembers a TV ad, probably on the Mr. Ed show, that talked about the “all new Studebaker Standard.”  The first I saw it, I expected them to show some new compact model, but instead it looked just like another Lark to me.  The Standard name was certainly not as inspired as the earlier Scotsman identification, but it was a name that Studebaker had used in the past; that being the Standard Six models (ER & EU) produced in 1925-27.  Evidently, someone decided that the Standard name lacked imagination, for in 1964 it was renamed the Challenger– a good name which, as it tuned out, proved to be most fitting for George Krem’s Front cover car.  Actually, the Challenger name was so good that it was later picked up by Dodge and NASA.

Initially scheduled to be produced as just a two-door sedan (F2 body) and a four-door sedan (Y2 body), the line was soon expanded to include a four-door wagon (P2 body).  The wagon was available with a fixed roof or an extra cost sliding roof. Both wagon versions were referred to as Wagonaires.  Prior to the introduction of the Standard wagon, all Wagonaires

had come with the sliding roof feature, but soon after the fixed roof Standard wagon was announced, a fixed roof option was made available on all 1963 wagons.  Studebaker’s initial idea was to mainly promote the Standard for fleet sales, but it was not long until they were pushing it in all domestic markets.  The sales brochures depict this change in approach.  The early Standard brochure (PD 63-49)`which did not include a wagon, had “For Budget-Minded Fleet Owners” on the front cover, while the later brochure (PD63-78), which included the wagon, had “For Budget-Minded Buyers” on the cover.

The Standard was available with the 170 0HV six, 259 V8 or 289 V8.  Avanti Jet Thrust engines were not listed options, but they could be special ordered.  From research completed by George Krem, we know that three Standard two-door sedans, (63V-F2) were built with Avanti Jet Thrust engines, one Rl and two supercharged R2 models.  Although the Jet Thrust engines were not included in option lists for the Standard, Public Relations Director Joseph DeFranco, in a March 1963 press release said, “This engine [R2] is available as a factory option on any Studebaker-built automobile.”  Unlike the Scotsman, where the option list was very limited, the Standard could be ordered with dozens of different options and accessories.  As mentioned, the basic Standard was a very stripped down model.  It had no side moldings, no hood ornament, no grille badge, no deck lid emblem, and no stainless steel moldings around any of the windows.  Under the hood, it only had a single chamber master cylinder, although a dual master cylinder was available as an extra cost option.  On the interior, only bench seats were available and the fancy vanity glove compartment gave way to just a box with a lid on top.  Because the Standard had no grille or deck lid emblems, there was no way from the outside to easily tell if it was a six or V8.

Since we are still lacking detailed production figures for most 1963 models, we have no idea how well the Standard models sold, but we do know that quite a few have survived.  Like many 1959 Scotsman pickup owners, most people who owned 1963 Standards in the past had no idea what the correct name for their car was.  On the other hand, most current owners of Standards who belong to SDC know what their car is and enjoy pointing out its special features.

1963 Compacts

One goal Studebaker had for the Standard was to have it competitively priced when compared to the other domestic compacts. Here is how it stacked up.

(Prices given are for base model two-door six cylinder compacts.)

The Studebaker Standard was certainly competitively priced,but it was also being produced by a company that was essentially losing money on every car it assembled.  Only higher production, which Studebaker hoped the Standard would help achieve, would put the company in the black.