The block huggers I put on this one fit a lot tighter and were the right price...free. this one was a six banger also. If it had better tires I would feel more comfortable driving it around more and really testing it. 3 of the tires are bald and 1 has the cords showing.
Maybe I missed something in the thread, but is that a '62 Lark? I had one & I remember mine looking a little different. That pic of the black 4-door looks more like my '59 (yes, I was a two time loser). Actually, that 259 in the '62 was no slouch (in comparison to the 265 in my '57 Chebby).
This is my Lark experience. The Blue one is a '63 or '62. I forget. The Hawk was one of those and the Lark the other. The C/Alt picture is a '59 as I remember. It was taken better that 40 years ago. The '62 or 3 had 4 headlights. And round tail lights. As I remember the '59 had single headlights. And Hemi. Studes always were better with a Hemi.
that thing looked right at home if its the one im thinking of....did it have a handful of carbs on it...?
Hey, J; That is a '59 or '60 (front end - possibly early '61.). Minor details 'twixt the two years. Quad headlights came in '61 as an option. But lots of Stude sheetmetal fits/retro-fits. Always liked the 59/60s the best. Had a '64 Cruiser w/289-3spOD. Enjoyable mill. Won't get into Stude mill vs chev/et-al replacements. Marcus...
I'll have to tell the owners to check their paper work. They told me it was a 62 I had no reason to doubt. Then again, they aren't really car people. Other than the engine and trans I put in the car is all original. Paint, interior, everything besides basic maintenance stuff. It even has the original rubber floor in front. almost no rust in the entire car.
It's a '60. And with the car having a 6 cylinder, the brakes may not be strong enough to slow it down. Studebaker even upgraded their brakes on V8 cars.
From the pictures I have been looking at it is a 60. The brakes are good enough to cruise around right now. I told the owner that they will need to be upgraded before we started. More later date stuff.
The rear end is most likely a Dana 27 (weak). A Ranger or Explorer 8.8" should fit the car. Turner Brakes sell a front disc conversion.
The Turner brake kit was the best thing I ever put in that car. Made it pleasant to drive. I let a friend drive my 383 SBC 4 speed Lark and shortly after that I installed a Currie 9 inch. They suggested an 8.8. But I have plenty of 9 inch third members so I stuck with what I have.
What year range explorer/ranger are we talking about? I told the owner when we started we would eventually need a new rear and bigger brakes. I figured use the explorer rear and maybe get the disc brake kit up front but who knows what I will get to do to the car. It could leave my shop and sit in their driveway til one of us buys it 20 years from now.
The Jalopy Journal
