I checked out David Crippen’s (1989) oral history of Virgil Exner Jr. to see if he offered any useful factual details about two lingering historical debates — why the Studebaker Lark as well as the downsized 1962 Plymouth and Dodge turned out the way that they did.
Exner said that he was hired in the fall of 1957 as a designer at Studebaker-Packard and was assigned to the Packard studio with Del Coates and Emil Bocade.
“About the only thing that I accomplished during that period of time was that as we were working on the Studebaker Lark to bring out the compact car, I got a chance to actually contribute a little bit to the design,” Exner recalled. “It was the rear quarter panel and taillight design for that car. That’s about all. Del actually had been there for a little while, and had done the Packard Hawk front end, which was produced in fiberglass.” (Crippen, 1989)
In this interview Exner did not weigh in on the origin of the Lark’s styling, such as a variety of rumors that its design was drawn from the Plymouth Valiant (Niedermeyer, 2017). However, he reportedly told The Herald-Palladium newspaper in 2011 that he shared with his boss Duncan McRae “the basic design of the Valiant’s front end. I guess he took the cue because when those cars came out those front ends came out relatively similar. It was my little spy job. My dad didn’t mind. He thought it was a great credit to him” (Bonfiglio, 2011).
Meanwhile, Coates told Collectible Automobile that he was among those who saw photographs of a completed Valiant clay model when he was 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 (Hogan, 2012; p. 74). Who is right? And does it matter? Here is our take.
Exner says 1962 Plymouth/Dodge lacked ‘verve’
Exner also discussed his father’s experience in overseeing the design of the 1962 Plymouth and Dodge.
“[Chrysler Corporation’s] sales were not going well, and he had designed this whole line of cars, [which] he thought would really do well for ’62, and, suddenly, the new [management team] — the new corporate philosophy more or less shot down completely this whole line of cars that he had prepared. They really pared the expenditures — the cost objectives to an extent that they came out looking like, as my father always referred to them, ‘picked chickens.’ They lacked the dimensional and detail verve.
“The basic philosophy was there with the long hood and short deck philosophy. The philosophy wasn’t objected to. There was no problem there. It was the idea, on the part of management, that they skimped on spending money needed to really make the design totally effective. Especially for an all-new idea like that, [the cars] needed to be [carefully] detailed to totally promote the whole image.” (Crippen, 1989)
Earlier in the interview Exner acknowledged that the original designs his father had overseen — the so-called S-series big cars — had “some rather radical ideas in the sculpture of them and in the proportions.” However, by arguing that the revised cars “lacked dimensional and detailed verve,” it sounds like he thought that shrinking the cars was a bad idea.
The so-called B-body Plymouth and Dodge also lost features included on the S-series such as curved side glass, which could have given the cars a much more effective “fuselage” shape. In addition, a sportier two-door hardtop body style was ditched in favor of a more mundane greenhouse shared with four-door models.
Exner did not weigh in on a lingering debate about why his father was ordered to downsize the 1962 Plymouth and Dodge. Go here for further discussion.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Bonfiglio, Jeremy D.; 2011. “Like father, like son.” The Herald-Palladium. Published Aug. 11 (reposted at Studebaker Drivers Club).
- Crippen, David; 1986. “Virgil M. Exner Jr. Interview.” the Henry Ford. Interview recorded Jan. 28.
- Hogan, David. J; 2012. “Del Coates: Designs for People.” Collectible Automobile. Published Dec.: pp. 70-77.
- Niedermeyer; 2017. “Design History: Why The 1959 Studebaker Lark Front End Looked So Much Like The 1960 Valiant Front End.” Curbside Classic. Posted March 26.
ADVERTISEMENTS & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Plymouth (1962); Dodge (1962)
I have never understood the debate regarding the similarities between the Lark and the Valiant. Other than sharing compact dimensions, these cars are quite different in appearance. Chrysler was able to do clean sheet, from the ground up design and development whereas Studebaker had no such luxury, shaving a foot or so off each end of their 1953 era cars. It wasn’t until 62 that Studebaker modernized the glasshouse on the Lark and it still didn’t approximate the Valiant. In fact, the Lark had more of a Chevy II look.
I agree with Robert. Studebaker was fooling around with that style grille since the mid-50s. There was more involved to the Lark than chopping off the front and rear (am I right, Stewdi?) but after all was said and done it sure looked like that. Now, just out of curiosity. Hiring another designer for Packard when the 58s were on the way? What the he did they do all day?
In the fall of ’57, it was the ’59 Lark that was on the way – not the ’58s. The ’58s were already “in the can”.
The story about Virg Jr. lifting the Lark grill from the Valiant is apparently true. l was at a Studebaker Drivers Club seminar and heard him “confess” the theft with my own ears.
l remember a college of my father’s who purchased a new ’61 Valiant 2 door in red – and with white walls and a floor shift! It was rather spiffy, but l was mad at Chrysler, thinking that they had stolen the Lark grill!
For ’59, Studebaker “stiffened up” the flathead six internals to make it even smoother running and upped the compression ratio for a small horsepower increase. The Lark instrument panel was pleasingly modernised (from the panel which first appeared in ’56). The front and rear bumpers were the same (a small innovation!).
The Studebaker Lark retained all the underpinnings (meaning the suspension, brakes, wheel size, frames and steering parts) plus engines and transmissions from its previously larger and heavier cars. This made Larks, which were a few hundred pounds lighter than non-Scotsman ’58s, quite sturdy mechanically.
My ’60 Lark V8 hardtop is really nice to drive with lots of power (0-60 in just under 10 seconds) and honestly very easy to handle despite no power steering or brakes (they’re NOT needed!).