Richard M. Langworth has authored more auto histories than just about anyone. Yet he was strikingly humble when beginning to discuss the controversial topic of who was responsible for the 1947 Studebaker’s styling.
“I am no professional historian, but on this subject I had the luck to find all of the sources alive and sentient and still lucid” (Langworth, 1994, p. 62). Then he carefully laid out what key players told him before offering a nuanced conclusion.
Aaron Severson may be younger than Langworth, but his research instincts appear to be similarly careful and tentative. For example, the Ate Up With Motor publisher took the time to show the difficulties of finding out who “invented” the predecessor to General Motors’ Hydra-Matic transmission (Severson, 2010).
His story illustrates the Internet’s great promise. A number of commentators appear to have helped Severson find obscure information. However, all too often the web has opened the door to a wild west where anyone can say pretty much anything — often under the cloak of anonymity.
How can the reader know what’s true? Short answer: There’s no substitute for improving your bullshit detector. Let’s discuss a lingering controversy in order to hone our skills.
A persistent rumor among auto history buffs is that the 1959 Studebaker Lark’s styling was influenced by the 1960 Valiant. Nagging questions about these stories have yet to be adequately answered (Automotive History Preservation Society).
Curbside Classic grapples with ‘design theft’ theories
An early Indie Auto essay — “Does the Internet dumb down automotive history?” — included a brief critique of the argument that the 1959 Studebaker Lark was a product of “design theft.” This rumor has persisted, so I would like to explore what we know and how we might more productively move this conversation forward.
I first learned about the design theft theory at Curbside Classic. As part of a story about the Lark, Paul Niedermeyer (2013) extensively quoted a missive from Rob Moore, who was introduced as a “devoted Studebaker historian.” Moore’s quote began with a level of bravado that contrasted with that of Langworth in his above-mentioned article.
The “secret is out,” Moore declared before telling us “(r)eally what happened.” Studebaker designer Duncan “McCrae” (sic) saw “styling elements from the Valiant” and “stuck them on the Lark.” These included the “headlight eyebrows” and a horizontal variation of the taillight treatment.
From here the story gets confusing. Moore originally stated that Chrysler design head Virgil Exner “leaked” the design elements “through his son, who was consulting at Studebaker.” However, a goodly portion of Moore’s hyperbole was deleted in 2017 when Niedermeyer reposted an “updated and expanded” version of the article.
“Design theft” advocates have never adequately explained what Studebaker would have gained from copying the Valiant’s styling when Chrysler’s compact looked decidedly unorthodox for the times (Old Car Brochures)?
Two paragraphs from a comment by Frank (2014) appear to have been inserted into Moore’s quote (should we assume that “Frank” was Moore in disguise?). The new text summarized an alternative version of events described in a Collectible Automobile interview with former Studebaker design Del Coates (Hogan, 2012). However, the next paragraph maintained Moore’s original assertion that Exner leaked Valiant design elements through his son. That would appear to contradict Coates’ story.
Meanwhile, in 2013 Niedermeyer explicitly called the Lark’s grille a case of “design theft,” but in a more recent Studebaker story (2014) he stated, “I’m not implying cribbing; design ideas are never created in a vacuum, and this was a popular theme, especially with Virgil Exner at Chrysler and Duncan McRae at Studebaker. There was plenty of cross-pollination of ideas between them.”
Paul Niedermeyer (2013) has suggested that the Studebaker Hawk’s “classic” grille was an “imitation” of Chrysler concept cars. Might the upright grille of the 1955 Chrysler Falcon have inspired Lark designers (Old Car Brochures)?
That sounds about right. However, the story about Virgil Exner Jr. keeps coming up. A Curbside Classic commentator named Cookie the Dog’s Owner (2013) wrote, “I’ve talked to Virgil Exner Jr. about the work he did with Studebaker, and he confirmed that the ’59 Lark was borrowing rather heavily from the Valiant.” This aligns with a recent Indie Auto comment by Stewdi (go here).
What does the Studebaker Drivers Club think?
This debate about the Lark’s stylistic origins was old news to the Studebaker Drivers Club, which had discussed the Collectible Automobile article after it was published in 2012. Both of the above-mentioned scenarios made an appearance but were discussed with greater tentativeness.
Studegary (2012) stated, “The way that Exner Jr. tells it is that he went to visit his father, Exner Sr. at Chrysler. Exner Jr. saw the design for the Falcon (later became the Valiant) [another story]. Exner Jr. brought these ideas, especially the grille, back to Studebaker for the Lark.”
The Lark had an upright and modernized version of the Hawk’s fascia, which was dominated by a radiator grille, single headlights and auxiliary grilles. In addition, both cars were named after birds (Automotive History Preservation Society).
The commentator who introduced this discussion thread, 60ragtop (2012), offered a useful counterpoint: “Who knows for sure? I always thought the ’59-’61 Lark grille was Hawk inspired but there is a close resemblance to the Valiant front end. Anyway, an interesting read and fairly detailed.”
Deco_droid (2012) was even more ambivalent: “With many of these guys gone or memory fading, who knows the actual truth, but as stated, very good article.”
So who is right? In the absence of written documentation we may never know. At this point all we have is hearsay — and everyone’s story doesn’t line up.
Coates challenged Exner Jr.’s version of events
In the Collectible Automobile interview, Coates disagreed with a number of Exner Jr.’s reported recollections. For example, Coates contended that Exner Jr. overstated his influence on the final design of the Lark’s rear end, which was not completed until three months after he left to serve in the Air Force (Hogan, 2012; p. 74).
The Lark’s ovoid taillights (1960 model shown) and concave rear end evoked the 1957 Studebaker (left image). The arched fender brow was similar to a never-produced, full-sized Studebaker (Old Car Advertisements).
Coates also stated that he was among those who saw photographs of a completed Valiant clay model. Coates had been hastily invited to sit in on an interview with a Chrysler designer who sought a job at Studebaker-Packard. “I never even told Virg Exner” about seeing the photographs, he added.
Coates’ story about the Valiant’s influence on the Lark sounds plausible. He offered a meaningful amount of detail and came across as a straight shooter. I can’t say that about some other retired automotive designers who have participated in oral histories.
The Valiant’s taillights looked less like the Lark’s than the 1961 Comet’s — which, in turn, had a family resemblance to the 1960 Edsel’s. The Comet was originally slated to be that brand’s junior model (Old Car Brochures).
That said, I am surprised the clay model for the Valiant was supposedly completed before the Lark’s even though the latter was to reach market one year earlier. Was this because the Lark was a glorified reskinning that was delayed by uncertain funding?
Coates does not address timing issues. However, Exner’s biographer Peter Grist wrote that a “Small Car Study Program” had been set up at Chrysler by May, 1958 and two full-sized clay models were presented at a product planning meeting in early July, 1958. Both of these events occurred after Studebaker-Packard’s board received a Lark product-planning proposal in October, 1957, and a funding request for preliminary tooling at a board meeting in February, 1958 (Ebert, 2013).
Inboard headlights were one of the biggest styling trends of 1959. They apparently offered an easy way to redesign the Edsel’s front end while carrying over its front-door sheetmetal from the previous year (Old Car Brochures).
Those dates suggest that McRae may not have been able to see an advanced version of the Valiant when he still had time to redesign the Lark. But for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that he did — either through Exner Jr. or the job applicant from Chrysler. How big of a deal was that?
Much ado about what?
Coates stated that “all of us were very disappointed in the way the total design turned out, largely because it was just a copy” of the Valiant (Hogan, 2012; p. 74).
It makes sense that Coates would say this because his own design proposal adopted the rounded and aerodynamic look of a Jaguar sedan. However, to my eyes the Lark’s front end — which Coates said was the part of the Valiant that McRae tried to copy as closely as he could — looks more like Studebaker’s aging sporty coupe, the Hawk.
The Hawk had a radiator grille since 1956. Studebaker typically tried to integrate Hawk design elements into its family cars (Old Car Brochures).
Of course, the Lark’s grille was upright rather than swept back like the Hawk’s. However, this was not a new idea — in previous years Studebaker stylists had already developed more upright interpretations of the Hawk’s grille (e.g., Special-Interest Autos, 1971).
Another major design similarity between the Valiant and Lark was the wraparound brow above inboard headlights. I would be surprised if Studebaker stylists needed to “steal” this approach. As a case in point, Coates’ illustration of a proposed 1959 Packard used a partial wraparound brow (Hogan, 2012). Another Studebaker stylist used inboard headlights on a proposed 1958 design (Special-Interest Autos, 1971).
What we have here is a design trend that swept through the U.S. auto industry with unusual speed. For 1959 a full wraparound brow would be used on the Edsel, Chevrolet, Pontiac and Oldsmobile. A partial wraparound could be found on the Chrysler, DeSoto, Imperial and Cadillac. Within two years almost all other American automotive brands would follow suit.
The 1957 Chrysler 300C’s radiator grille could have influenced both the Valiant and Lark by legitimizing a tall grille at a time when horizontal shapes predominated among U.S. passenger cars (Old Car Advertisements).
But even if Studebaker stylists had been locked in a closet, they still might have “discovered” a full wraparound brow for a very practical reason. Cutting the Studebaker body’s length to 175 inches required an exceptionally short front overhang. The fascia would have looked far too tall if the headlights had been kept in their traditional outboard location at the top corners of each fender.
A wrap-around brow was an obvious solution that could have been brainstormed by merely looking at a 1957 Imperial. Indeed, the Lark’s front end is essentially a mash-up of three 1957 American cars — the Imperial, the Chrysler 300C and the Hawk.
The 1957-59 Imperial took a half step toward a wrap-around brow and inboard headlights. The Imperial was lower than the Lark, but the shape of its front corners had meaningful similarities (Old Car Brochures).
Let’s consider one final point that I have not seen discussed elsewhere: If Studebaker designers were going to copy the Valiant, why didn’t they take its most useful design elements? I would suggest that these were its front and rear bumpers, which were unusually thin, long and positioned relatively high on the car.
Let’s set up the Lark for unflattering comparisons!
Seeing the Valiant should have scared the pants off of Studebaker designers. That’s because they would have had a more concrete sense of how the Lark was not competitive with the forthcoming Big Three compacts.
The Lark was based upon a seven-year-old platform, so it suffered from a variety of dated design elements. These included overly thick B-pillars and a dog leg windshield. In time those problems would be fixed. Not fixable was the Studebaker’s unfashionably tall body.
The Valiant’s front and rear bumpers were unusual for that era because they were mounted high on the body, were thin and wrapped quite a ways into the body sides. This gave the car a lower, sportier look (Old Car Brochures).
The Valiant’s Europeanesque bumpers offered a clever way for Studebaker to at least partially disguise its taller body. American Motors recognized the wisdom of this approach when restyling the front and rear of its senior Rambler in 1961-62.
In contrast, Studebaker stuck with low-mounted bumpers through 1963. This accentuated the stubbiness of the front end, which looked positively agricultural compared to the Valiant’s long and low nose.
Inboard headlights and high-mounted bumpers gave the 1962 Rambler (top image) a significantly lower appearance than 1959 models despite being based on the same tall body (Old Car Brochures).
At any rate, Chrysler did not invent high-mounted bumpers. The Valiant may very well have been inspired by the front end of the 1955-56 Packard and the 1957-58 Studebaker. And as you can see from the above image of a Chrysler 300, that brand had high-mounted front bumpers in 1957-58.
The moral to this story: There wasn’t a whole lot here for Studebaker to “steal.” If McRae did indeed see the Valiant’s design, I suspect that at most it gave him confidence to apply the Hawk’s classical look to the Lark at a time when low and wide grilles were the dominant American design trend.
The Valiant was developed in such “complete secrecy” that it was disguised as a defense project (Grist, 2007; p. 112). Why would Exner allow a leak about such a high-stakes car to a competitor (Old Car Brochures)?
Bar stool auto history: The price of the Internet?
One should not expect discussions of automotive history to be neat and tidy. Severson’s above-mentioned article is a great example of how researching history can have false starts and blind alleys that only robust debate can resolve.
What makes the Lark design theft discussion most interesting to me is that it appears to be a mostly Internet phenomenon.
Only one of the Studebaker books that I have read discusses the origins of the Lark’s styling. Langworth’s postwar Studebaker history stated that the grille was “probably McRae’s idea, though it did not, as is oft-assumed, stem from the Mercedes-Benz line Studebaker dealers were selling.” Langworth went on to quote McRae, who described the grille as “more of a Lancia approach” (1993, p. 104).
Of course, the Collectible Automobile story brought up one design theft theory, but this was a question-and-answer oral history rather than an independent analysis akin to Langworth’s histories.
More primary research could clarify the development timelines for the Lark and Valiant. If the above-mentioned dates are representative, that could raise the possibility that somebody has been telling fish tales (Old Car Advertisements).
In other words, this topic illustrates how the immediacy of the Internet has allowed an admirably wide range of people to explore perspectives that have not been adequately addressed by the print media. This exploration is a good thing. Nevertheless, I get antsy when folks declare with bravado that something is true when the evidence looks murky at best.
Going forward, it would be useful to better document the development timelines for the Lark and Valiant. That could help clarify the accuracy of the rumors. We would also do well to step back and ask some basic questions about motivation. Why would Exner leak the design? Why would McRae copy a competitor? Why do these rumors have such staying power?
NOTES:
This is an expanded version of a story originally posted on Dec. 10, 2014 and updated on April 2, 2017.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
Richard M. Langworth is arguably the dean of American automotive history. I suspect that he has authored or co-authored more books than anyone else in the field. More importantly, his writing is noteworthy for its […]
(EXPANDED ON 8/25/2022) Collectible Automobile has offered an unusually critical take on the 1978-80 Pontiac Grand Prix. A subhead summed up its case by stating, “There was no getting around the need for cars to […]
I have mentioned before that monitoring the American automotive media reminds me of the Bruce Springsteen song, “57 Channels (And Nothin’ On).” The buff magazines and websites spend so much time trying to mimic each […]
10 Comments
It must be acknowledged that credit for automotive design (when a GOOD design is cited) is often a hard to nail down because seemingly all the designers/engineers who were present, and even only had a SMALL hand in the “job”, then want credit. The corollary to this is also true – with a poor design, NOBODY wants to take the “wrap”.(“Everybody” designed the ’49 Ford, but “nobody” designed the Edsel!). It has likely been like this since Benz and Daimler and the Duryea brothers and the Apperson brothers.
But it sounds likely that l was in the same room with Studegary in a seminar put on by the Studebaker Drivers Club about 10 years ago. Virgil Exner Jr. was there that day and he fully admitted to visiting Virgil Sr. at Chrysler and coming back to Studebaker with the purloined design of the ’59 Lark’s front grill. So, l am confirming Studegary’s “testimony” verbatim.
I think the terms “inboard” and “outboard” are somewhat confusing when what you’re describing is the trend that began in earnest in 1959 to lower headlights to grille level, rather than placing them above which had been the common practice. I would credit the 1955 Nash as the originator.
I don’t see it. As the article points out, the grille was a Studebaker item before 1959. I always thought it was to more identify with Mercedes, which Stude distributed for a while. The oval tailligjhts are a stretch. Look at the whole thing- Valiant was striving for a modern Euro sporty look, while Studebaker was striving for, I don’t know, a big Hillman? If you want to see copying or more likely convergent evolution, look at the 51-54 Packards compared to contemporary Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles.
Have to point out that the Lark grille did not get “Mercedes-like” until 1962. And that Studebaker did not get hooked up with Mercedes-Benz distribution until over a year AFTER the Hawk series was introduced.
And yes the earlier Lark grill fit did well with Bob Bourke’s(?) Hawk grill. Perhaps Virgil Jr. was also taking credit for persuading Stude to use that grill rather than another proposal. It would have been well for him to have convinced Studebaker that they NEEDED to use this prominent grill for the Lark which, of course, would obviously tie it to a family Hawk/Lark design resemblance. If they hadn’t used it, the grill would have forever been solely a Valiant design feature. However, Studebaker, with their new slightly earlier-released (for ’59) compact NEEDED, and would benefit from, the tie-in with it’s more glamorous Hawk “cousin”.
I think Stewdi is on target. Here. Studebaker had brand identity with an upright grill with the Hawks. Maybe Exner Sr. affirmed Exner Jr.’s thoughts but I never thought of the 1959 Lark as a rip-off of the 1960 Valiant.
Kim, please look at the ’49 Hillman Minx. It closely resembles ’47 Studebaker Champion styling. Further, when Hillman updated the design in ’57, they copied Studebaker’s ’53 roof/c-pillar style! And look at a ’58-’59 Sunbeam Rapier. It is a hardtop, and if it isn’t styled to be a miniature ’57 Golden Hawk, I don’t know what is!! Humber – also from Rootes Group – stared using the “Hawk” as a model name in ’57. In reference to your remark, it seems that Rootes was striving to look like Studebaker, not the other way around as you suggested.
The general styling of the early Lark with the front “eye brows” and the contour continuing around the body to trunk area (either through either a body contour or long bits of trim) was picked up on the continent by the ’63 NSU and Hillman (there they are again!) Imp. Certainly the ’60-’64 Corvair and, perhaps with a stretch, the ’63/’64 Chrysler also followed this design element.
It seems to me that it’s possible that Studebaker was first out with the early Lark’s design direction and that it was followed by other designers and manufacturers.
Kim, l honestly do know that Studes are not perfect. Having been a fan of them for as long as l can remember (and l’m a kid of the 50s and 60s too), l unfortunately seem to find it too tempting to defend them. l should have seen a “shrink” years ago (there was one in my town that had a green ’73 Avanti II!). But it’s too late now! lol
‘Langworth’s postwar Studebaker history stated that the grille was “probably McRae’s idea, though it did not, as is oft-assumed, stem from the Mercedes-Benz line Studebaker dealers were selling.”’
This had always been my assumption. That and Studebaker wanting to give a family resemblance with their Hawk line.
In all these years I had never heard of Lark stealing Valiant’s grille design until first reading about it on Curbside Classics.
When I was a kid, the Larks and Valiants were all late-model used cars, so I went a lifetime without encountering this claim.
What else would a stylist do, really, with such a tall stumpy front end but call the eye to the center?
Anyway, I love these articles about the Lark. So many attractive features: headroom, flat floors, legroom, size. An accidental take on all the space efficiencies of GM’s X cars, plus bolt-on fenders on all four corners for easy repair or replacement.
Yes, the internet is quite the wild west. One day it will turn into something impressive, you just watch.
If we want to go tearing into design “approprations”, there are more tangible examples, such as Elwood Engle’s 1964 Plymouth “big” car wearing a similar 1963 Chevrolet full-size front clip, at least in the grill, and the 1964 Dodge Polara with square tail-light arrangements that look inspired by Chevrolets from 1960-1964. Since the 1961 Lincoln and original clay for the 1961 Thunderbird, it is not surprising that the 1964-1966 Imperials have often been referred as “Englebirds’. I think the 1959 Lark was a relatively clean-sheet design, chopping off the overhangs. The Studebaker front-end had hints of “three-piece” grilles of earler Studebakers and brows over the headlights were hardly a new design feature. The rear-end was pure earlier Studebakers, pre-1953, only horizonal. I think many forget that the Lark was the real “Hail Mary” for Studebaker, and that Duncan MacRae (sp?) had a very limited budget and had to mount the bumpers to the existing Studebaker 1953-vintage chassis as economically as possible, attaching a new front-end cap and new rear-cap on the existing platform. And considering the lead-times needed in 1957-58 to get to the assembly in the late 1958, I think the Lark was remarkable, although inside the 1959 Lark, the driver and passengers basically found a 1954 Studebaker sedan, in my opinion.
It must be acknowledged that credit for automotive design (when a GOOD design is cited) is often a hard to nail down because seemingly all the designers/engineers who were present, and even only had a SMALL hand in the “job”, then want credit. The corollary to this is also true – with a poor design, NOBODY wants to take the “wrap”.(“Everybody” designed the ’49 Ford, but “nobody” designed the Edsel!). It has likely been like this since Benz and Daimler and the Duryea brothers and the Apperson brothers.
But it sounds likely that l was in the same room with Studegary in a seminar put on by the Studebaker Drivers Club about 10 years ago. Virgil Exner Jr. was there that day and he fully admitted to visiting Virgil Sr. at Chrysler and coming back to Studebaker with the purloined design of the ’59 Lark’s front grill. So, l am confirming Studegary’s “testimony” verbatim.
I think the terms “inboard” and “outboard” are somewhat confusing when what you’re describing is the trend that began in earnest in 1959 to lower headlights to grille level, rather than placing them above which had been the common practice. I would credit the 1955 Nash as the originator.
I don’t see it. As the article points out, the grille was a Studebaker item before 1959. I always thought it was to more identify with Mercedes, which Stude distributed for a while. The oval tailligjhts are a stretch. Look at the whole thing- Valiant was striving for a modern Euro sporty look, while Studebaker was striving for, I don’t know, a big Hillman? If you want to see copying or more likely convergent evolution, look at the 51-54 Packards compared to contemporary Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles.
Have to point out that the Lark grille did not get “Mercedes-like” until 1962. And that Studebaker did not get hooked up with Mercedes-Benz distribution until over a year AFTER the Hawk series was introduced.
And yes the earlier Lark grill fit did well with Bob Bourke’s(?) Hawk grill. Perhaps Virgil Jr. was also taking credit for persuading Stude to use that grill rather than another proposal. It would have been well for him to have convinced Studebaker that they NEEDED to use this prominent grill for the Lark which, of course, would obviously tie it to a family Hawk/Lark design resemblance. If they hadn’t used it, the grill would have forever been solely a Valiant design feature. However, Studebaker, with their new slightly earlier-released (for ’59) compact NEEDED, and would benefit from, the tie-in with it’s more glamorous Hawk “cousin”.
I think Stewdi is on target. Here. Studebaker had brand identity with an upright grill with the Hawks. Maybe Exner Sr. affirmed Exner Jr.’s thoughts but I never thought of the 1959 Lark as a rip-off of the 1960 Valiant.
Kim, please look at the ’49 Hillman Minx. It closely resembles ’47 Studebaker Champion styling. Further, when Hillman updated the design in ’57, they copied Studebaker’s ’53 roof/c-pillar style! And look at a ’58-’59 Sunbeam Rapier. It is a hardtop, and if it isn’t styled to be a miniature ’57 Golden Hawk, I don’t know what is!! Humber – also from Rootes Group – stared using the “Hawk” as a model name in ’57. In reference to your remark, it seems that Rootes was striving to look like Studebaker, not the other way around as you suggested.
The general styling of the early Lark with the front “eye brows” and the contour continuing around the body to trunk area (either through either a body contour or long bits of trim) was picked up on the continent by the ’63 NSU and Hillman (there they are again!) Imp. Certainly the ’60-’64 Corvair and, perhaps with a stretch, the ’63/’64 Chrysler also followed this design element.
It seems to me that it’s possible that Studebaker was first out with the early Lark’s design direction and that it was followed by other designers and manufacturers.
Stewdi, thanks for the corrections. I was going on my memories of these cars from when I was a kid in the 50s and 60s.
Kim, l honestly do know that Studes are not perfect. Having been a fan of them for as long as l can remember (and l’m a kid of the 50s and 60s too), l unfortunately seem to find it too tempting to defend them. l should have seen a “shrink” years ago (there was one in my town that had a green ’73 Avanti II!). But it’s too late now! lol
‘Langworth’s postwar Studebaker history stated that the grille was “probably McRae’s idea, though it did not, as is oft-assumed, stem from the Mercedes-Benz line Studebaker dealers were selling.”’
This had always been my assumption. That and Studebaker wanting to give a family resemblance with their Hawk line.
In all these years I had never heard of Lark stealing Valiant’s grille design until first reading about it on Curbside Classics.
When I was a kid, the Larks and Valiants were all late-model used cars, so I went a lifetime without encountering this claim.
What else would a stylist do, really, with such a tall stumpy front end but call the eye to the center?
Anyway, I love these articles about the Lark. So many attractive features: headroom, flat floors, legroom, size. An accidental take on all the space efficiencies of GM’s X cars, plus bolt-on fenders on all four corners for easy repair or replacement.
Yes, the internet is quite the wild west. One day it will turn into something impressive, you just watch.
If we want to go tearing into design “approprations”, there are more tangible examples, such as Elwood Engle’s 1964 Plymouth “big” car wearing a similar 1963 Chevrolet full-size front clip, at least in the grill, and the 1964 Dodge Polara with square tail-light arrangements that look inspired by Chevrolets from 1960-1964. Since the 1961 Lincoln and original clay for the 1961 Thunderbird, it is not surprising that the 1964-1966 Imperials have often been referred as “Englebirds’. I think the 1959 Lark was a relatively clean-sheet design, chopping off the overhangs. The Studebaker front-end had hints of “three-piece” grilles of earler Studebakers and brows over the headlights were hardly a new design feature. The rear-end was pure earlier Studebakers, pre-1953, only horizonal. I think many forget that the Lark was the real “Hail Mary” for Studebaker, and that Duncan MacRae (sp?) had a very limited budget and had to mount the bumpers to the existing Studebaker 1953-vintage chassis as economically as possible, attaching a new front-end cap and new rear-cap on the existing platform. And considering the lead-times needed in 1957-58 to get to the assembly in the late 1958, I think the Lark was remarkable, although inside the 1959 Lark, the driver and passengers basically found a 1954 Studebaker sedan, in my opinion.