Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
When I was at the Stude Museum archives about three years ago, looking at new Studes sold by my small hometown dealer from Sept. '63-April '66, I actually saw sales cards filled out for two, maybe three, new Studes where the car traded in was a M-B. Of course, back then, in a small town, I think folks tended to buy the dealer as much as the car, unlike today.
That said, I've never driven nor ridden in any model Benz of that era. Only reporting what I've heard. If fintail lived closer, I'm sure he'd happily take me for a spin!
My dealer friend did say his Dad just loved his late-fifties 220S sedan, black with red interior. I have color pics of his Dad in a suit standing next to it.
I miss my Studes. I sure hope I can get another '63 or '64 sometime soon (sigh). All three of mine ended up in Australia when I didn't even have them on the market. Buyers pursued me based on info on the cars I had online in the S.D.C.
The best chrome at that time actually came out of England, at least on the higher end cars.
American cars in the 50s and 60s were pretty much just slammed together, and, given that, gave remarkably good service. Fussy construction doesn't always pay off.
For reliability, I think the cars being seen as special helped encourage owners to take better care. Also the early FI models were easier to live with than carb cars, so that probably helped, too. And they do need more frequent major servicing then some normal cars - valve adjustments etc.
Your kid will be out of school eventually, right? Buy then - a nice old car is still cheaper than many ordinary new cars. And yes, if you or anyone else is in the Seattle area for awhile (and my car is on the road - still laid up right now), I'd take you for a spin. They are interesting cars, hard to describe their manner other than that they feel newer than they are.
I think the main problem was that they held the Lark front end style for five years between 1959 and 1963. That was too long. The 1964s looked new and different, but it was too late then.
In 1960 the Falcon outsold the two compacts combined. That year Ford sold 436,000 Falcons, Chevy sold 250,000 Corvairs and Plymouth sold 194,000 Valiants. That was only the first wave of small cars. In 1962, Chevrolet introduced the Chevy II (Nova) and sold nearly 407,000 that year. The Chevy II was GM's response to the Falcon.
I still see Falcons on the road from time to time. I saw a 1962 Ford Falcon Ranchero pick-up truck just a few days ago. Another one is one the same block where I live. My barber got rid of his Falson (not a Ranchero) about three years ago only because it was in a serious accident.
I had the most experience with Mercedes Benz when I was in Germany 1974-1976 because our first sergeant had one as did a friend of mine. My friend's car was a diesel that was slower than a Studebaker Lark VI. The first sergeant was always complaining about the cost of repairs, which happened frequently. I remembered being shocked and awed and the expense of replacing a starter motor, but then the new starter chewed up the ring gear, which made the first repair seem like a bargain. That car was nothing but trouble.
The cars I am speaking of were from the early 1970s and that was long ago. It seems that of my many friends who owned Ford Falcons, all were happy with them. I know from personal experience that they were very easy to repair and maintain, because one of my girl friends had one. But there were mixed results from my friends who owned MB of the era between 1965-1975.
The earliest Falcons were pretty dreadful (1960-62) but they got better.
Technically, the Corvair was the most interesting of those 60s compacts. The others were conventional automobiles not much different from a 1941 car of 20 years prior.
"Then, In 1956, Studebaker acquired the rights to sell Mercedes cars in the U.S. as a result of their association with defense contractor Curtis-Wright. The Curtis-Wright deal was kind of government led, and pumped business into the aircraft engine operations on Chippewa St. I've never seen any proof that the earlier trademark dispute in any shape matter or form led to the 1956 deal. Curtis-Wright had the rights to Mercedes, but no way to do anything with them. So, the Studebaker deal really got things rolling for Mercedes in the U.S. Remember, this was only about ten years after the end of WWII, so selling a German car wasn't really a license to steal.
Studebaker had much to do with the development of the Mercedes image we know today. The first cars were solid mechanically, but the paint and finish was rough. They did great cars like the gullwing coupes and such, but in the 50's their sedans were kind of like Oldsmobiles or Buicks. Good solid value, but not exotic (and in some countries to this day, they still don't have quite the mystique Studebaker helped establish here for them). Studebaker worked with them to bring products up to American finish expectations, and spent time, effort and money to promote them as a high end luxury car after the first few years of average sales. It worked, and by the time Studebaker was getting ready to exit the car business, Mercedes took over American distribution by themselves. The rest is history.
In 1960, my Dad worked at Roth Plating, the plating suppler for Studebaker. Besides buffing up Hawk hood scoops, one of the jobs he has talked about was prepping Mercedes bumpers that had been damaged by rubbing together if parked too close together on the boat ride over. If just one bumper was scuffed, they had to do both. The Roth plating was so much better than the plating from Germany, it stuck out like a sore thumb. During the arrangement, every new U.S. Mercedes came through South Bend. My how times change.
To add a bit, Curtis Wright ended up getting the rights to Mercedes through the Marshall Plan, I think, after World War II. The 1956 Curtis Wright Deal was said in the 1984 PBS Documentary "Studebaker -Less Than They Promised" to have been orchestrated by the Eisenhower Administration to assure Studebaker's failure would not become a campaign issue in the 1956 Elections.
And I'd like to emphasize a bit more that the first Mercedes cars imported under the agreement were not junk. It's just that runs in the paint and other little items Americans would not like were acceptable evidently to Mercedes other worldwide customers at the time. Mercedes had a reputation for doing some high dollar cars then and before, but their run of the mill production cars weren't as nicely finished. Studebaker helped them overcome that on their bread and butter line."
Well, like the joke says, "if it's on the internet, it must be true".
Compared to a 50s Benz, most American cars were built like wheelbarrows.
Fintail, some time back I told you about an article on the Stude-MB years in our national club magazine. I found it online. There are some neat pics in it, and it was written by Fred Fox, the most astute Stude historian and factually-fussy writer I've been aware of over the decades. Hope you can see the pages:
http://www.studebaker-info.org/StudeMercedes/tw0691SM/TWSM.html
The 'Lon Fleener' mentioned and photographed in the article, after South Bend shut down, married Sherwood Egbert's and Byers Burlingame's (last two Presidents of the Auto Division) secretary, Martha. I met her twice in South Bend, where she would come to large meets from her home in Long Beach, CA. There's a color video from '62 on YouTube called "Studebaker Today" where Egbert speaks, and a lady walks in and hands him something. He says, "Thank you Martha". It's her. Pretty cool.
The guys who wrote segments for the article, who worked in South Bend in the management end of the M-B sales division at the time, were very complimentary of Germany and the M-B products at the time.
For the period around 1960-65 or so, a fuel injected MB was about the most modern passenger car on the market, were built to a high standard (other than rustproofing), and were usually priced in the Buick-to-Cadillac price range rather than twice as much as a normal car, as they are today.
It is certainly true, however, that Benz learned mass production techniques from the Americans, ( and no doubt marketing and advertising as well) and successfully applied them to the luxury segment in the late 60s and thereafter.
I totally disagree with that ranking and the sales figures do not support it either. The Valiant looked like a Studebaker Lark on steriods with the faux spare tire (toilet seat) from the Packard Hawk glued on the trunk. For Valiant to win the contest, the qualifications must be limited to fastest six-cylinder compact because of the slant six cylinder engine, which I admit was the best of the six cylinder engines, but you would buy a Lark with a V-8.
My Uncle loved his 1960 Corvair BUT my aunt hated it because it was cold in the winter because my Uncle did would not run the gasoline fired heater located up front with its own pilot light. Good gawd, who invented that device? Grandma hated it because it was hard to get into the back seat, and we had to pull her out at the end of the trip. The floor was too low.
I favor the Falcon even though its sales did the most to kill the Lark. If the objective of a compact car is economy, ease of maintenance and consumer loyalty then the Falcon wins. I am not a Ford fan and would not personally own a Falcon, but I see more of them on the street with happy owners 50 years later.
To sum it up, the Lark led to the Avanti, the Falcon led to the Mustang, the Valiant led to the Dodge Dart and the Corvair led to Ralph Nader.
But I do agree, for overall performance, handling, acceleration and reliability, I'd give the nod to Valiant.
I'd put the Falcon as dead last in every category, at least in 1960-62.
It seems that for once, Studebaker Lark did not end up in last place, since the Falcon has been judged the worst. Some progress is being made, however slight.
As for the "technologically interesting" class, the Corvair leaked more oil than a Studebaker V-8, (it should have been named the Chevrolet Exxon Valdez) the gasoline fired heater must lead the list of most dangerous devices at the front end with the swing axle at the rear end a close second. It should win the prize as the dangerous vehicle coming and going, which was often difficult to determine.
Move ahead a decade and we could have the same discussion about the Ford Pinto vs the Chevy Vega. The Vega was the technologically interesting with its overhead cam aluminium engine (pioneered by Crosley), but it rusted worse than a Studebaker and leaked as much oil. It least the Studebaker oil leaks in a way that preserves the frame and under side of the car.
Based on personal experience, what do you see more on the road, Falcon or Corvair. . . Pinto or Vega? I cannot remember the last time I saw a Vega on the road. I see more Pintos and Corvairs than Vegas and I see more Falcons than all of the others combined.
the 1960 Falcon was a gasping wheezing ornery piece of tin, in my recollection. After 1963, they got considerably better. The V8 Sprint is a nice car to own nowadays. Jay Leno has one.
The Corvair had good power and a wonderful ride but very quirky, and pretty poor heat and ventilation...to say nothing of tricky handling. Excellent brakes, though! Soon to be overshadowed by the Nova. 1965 Corvair was a jewel, but alas, too little too late.
The Lark was cute and sturdy with no special quirks and no special competence. Kind of an honest car with no outstanding features. It was popular though and well-liked by onlookers, but the snub-nose look went out of fashion pretty fast, requiring some re-styling that looked pretty good.
The Valiant was the heaviest at 2,635 pounds and the Falcon was the lightest at 2,288,which is quite a weight difference. All comparisons have to be for the 4 door sedans because the Valiant was not available in a 2 door model. The line up, lightest to heaviest was Falcon 2,288 pounds, Corvair 2,305, Rambler American 2,474, Lark 2,592, Valiant 2,635. Lowest weight for an economy car being best, Falcon wins.
Next comparison horsepower. Lark V-8 wins with 180 hp minimum, then Valiant six 148 hp or 101 hp, and Falcon, Lark VI and Rambler with 90 hp, Corvair with 80 hp. Lark wins with only V-8, Valiant wins with two best six cylinder engines.
Final comparison, price. Rambler, $1,844, Falcon $1,974, Corvair $2,038, Lark $2,046, Valiant $2,053. Least expensive, Rambler, most expensive Valiant.
It is hard to believe I am defending the Ford Falcon given that its sales damaged Studebaker the most. The introduction of a convertible and V-8 in mid 1963 eliminated the few advantages the Lark had in the compact sales race. But I try to call 'em as I see 'em. The Falcon was a great compact economy car and I like seeing them on the road now.
Ironically, Ford probably thought like I do, and transformed the Falcon into the Sprint, which was a handsome car and a worthy competitor to the V8 Lark.
The 65 Corvair turned out to be the prettiest of them all, but alas, by 1965 Corvair was already slated for extinction by GM. The "American Porsche" never happened.
My friend had a V8 Lark, bright red, and I SOOOO wanted that car--but ended up with a President 2D hardtop instead, which all in all, was probably the better car.
That had been my traditional position on the subject, but I thought it was the result my bias in favor of Studebaker. I had a moment of weakness having seen two Ranchero pick up trucks on the road during in the past week. Only the good die young.
I'm also reminded of a 'Wonder Years' episode, where the family was smitten by a Mustang at the dealership; then the Dad says, "Got any Falcon wagons?". The family was crestfallen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlRvkGmUUds
I remember "Wonder Years" very well - when it debuted, I was about Kevin's age, and I watched it for the old scenery and well written stories.
Here's the Mustang:
The Custom 500 they end up buying:
Their 63 Impala from earlier episodes:
And a Dodge wagon seen in a few - they claimed it was a much older car than it really was:
Oh, and Wayne's ratty Corvair seen in many episodes:
And the Olds Kevin inherited:
Yeah, that Dodge is a '67 or '68 but I remember it being referred to as a '61 on at least one episode.
Oh...and what's not to like about Olivia d'Abo? LOL...even though her character on the show was annoying.
I remember the salesman giving Arnold's Dad a lowball offer and he walked out of the dealership with the salesman chasing after him.
The auction ended at over 30,000 dollars had his reserve wasn't met?
The car wasn't original and it was far from perfect.
Now, I know I have TOTALLY lost touch with reality!
I'd think a similar Big 3 compact two-door sedan of the same model year, in same condition, probably wouldn't have brought that type of bids.
I believe the record (on eBay, anyway) for a perfect/authentic '63 factory R2 Lark two-door sedan was $40K, probably five years ago.
At about 10:48 is shown what I think is a 230 hardtop.
This subject reminds me that our old '62 Fairlane six still had a manual choke! Even Studebaker was done with those by that time.
Developing new engine technology is very expensive, so the temptation is to keep re-using the old powerplants in as many ways as you can.
Nobody could field all the engine options that GM managed in the 60s.
http://billstudepage.homestead.com/files/engine.htm
I think Studebaker made a number of mistakes when it came to its 6 cylinder motors. They had the Champion flathead up to 101 hp between 1955-58, but then cut it back to 90 hp for the Lark in 1959. The main difference was the increased displacement was caused by increasing the length of the piston stroke.
The 90 hp version was the same power as the Falcon, Rambler American and 10 hp more than the Corvair, but was much less than the Valiant with 101 hp standard and 148 optional. It seems that Studebaker could have kept the 101 hp version as an option so that the Lark could be the second strongest 6 cylinder motor after the Valiant. All they had to do is use the 1955 connecting rods and maybe keep the crankshaft that was already in production.
When Studebaker decided to go to overhead valves in 1961, they put the new cylinder head on the small displacement motor so they only got to 112 hp. It seems like a lot of effort to get 10 more hp than they had in 1955. As an end result, a person who wanted to buy a Lark only had one six cylinder and two V-8 engines available (259 and 289 cu. in). A person who visited the AMC or Chrylser dealers (and later Ford Falcon) had two 6 cylinder engines available. Studebaker did not seem to have the correct engine line-up for selling a lot of compact cars and when the Ford Falcon became available with the V-8 in mid 1963, then was the end of the advantage Studebaker had over the other compact cars.
I agree with what Uplander guy said about the Skybolt 6 motor and what Mr. Shiftright said about manual chokes. I had two 1960 Larks and my dad had a 1959 Lark. It was hard to start the 6 cylinder Lark motor in cold weather with the automatic choke. I would liked to have had a manual choke so I could keep the engine from flooding in cold weather.
On top of that, you had GM price-cutting in addition to the plethora of new models you could buy through the Big Three. Studebaker was probably doomed in 1946 but it was just hard to see into the crystal ball at the time. There was so much post-war optimism that anything seemed possible, but of course, that wasn't really true. The U.S. car market got saturated pretty quickly after postwar scarcity was met, and after that, it was the Big Boys against the Little Guys, with a predictable outcome.
Here's a concise chart of auto production by manufacturer through the years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Automobile_Production_Figures
http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?43864-Met-the-original-own- ers-of-my-Skytop-yesterday&highlight=duginski
The last year they looked like a credible automaker was 1953.
Gee, what happened in 1954--an enormous drop in production?
1954 was when Packard and Stude merged...Packard was down a lot too. As has been well-documented, 1954 was when Henry Ford II got into a price war with Chevrolet and dealers were dumped with cars and told to sell or else...prices went way down.
S-P's President, James Nance, decided to make Clipper a separate brand for '56, but combined Packard and Clipper production was only 28K cars. Without Detroit, the loss was reduced by 75% for '57 with a relatively unchanged Studebaker line.
The most profitable year in Studebaker's history was 1959. They last built over 100K cars in the '60 and '62 model years.
As soon as buyers got a whiff of failure, they tended to move away from the brand, except for diehard loyalists. No one wanted to be stuck with an "orphan" as we used to call the Independents.
Before I start the car, I look at the amp meter and step on the brakes. If the needle on the amp meter moves, I know I have brake lights. Then I click on the switch for lights for the same reason. Before I shut it down, I know if the battery is fully charged. When a battery is getting old, it does not take a full charge, or it takes a long time to get there.
These features are very useful on an older car. If Dick Van [non-permissible content removed] had kept his 1963 Avanti instead of giving it to the Petersen Auto Museum, you would not have heard have heard about his new Jaguar catching fire yesterday.