Here’s one of the prettiest cars Studebaker ever made, courtesy of Robert Bourke working under Raymond Loewy: the Commander Starliner hardtop. Its shapely demeanor is a bit of a miracle since the model was a rush job, emerging for 1953 as an answer to fancy models brought out by the Big Three. Situated on the 120″ Land Cruiser chassis, the Starliner is long, low, and nearly devoid of chrome – a unique sensation back in the day. Studebaker sold it as “the American car with the European look”. Its stablemates included the Starlight, a pillared coupe, and then the same two body styles planted on the 116″ Champion chassis. Other than length, the cars were differentiated by their motors – a V6 for the Champion series and a V8 for the Commander. This 1953 example is listed here on facebook Marketplace at a price of $5500. It’s located in Michigan City, Indiana, and Sam61 sent us the tip – thanks!
No doubt this Starliner needs plenty of help; its 232 cu. in. V8 does turn but won’t run. Once resurrected, it’s good for 120 hp. A three-speed automatic transmission brings the power to the rear wheels; overdrive was an option. More boulevard cruiser than sports car, the Starliner was a harbinger of the Thunderbird – another V8 with racy looks and a cruising attitude.
Remember Bill Murray in Stripes – the breakup scene? “Talk about massive potential for growth!” This interior could have starred in that scene. The seller notes the driver’s floor and the trunk lid channel need to be replaced – patch panels come with the sale. The upholstery is mostly missing but was provided in broadcloth or nylon; the Regal trim level came with deep pile carpet. The instrument panel was marketed as “designed in the European manner”, with large, round individual gauges. These were the days when the “hill holder” feature was new-ish, and tinted windows were optional.
The Starliner is styled with a neat tail, one of the most graceful greenhouses found on any coupe, a sweeping indent reaching over the front fenders to the rear of the doors, and a lovely haunch highlighted with a chrome strip. It’s a head-turner even in this condition. That said, restoring this car will be an act of passion rather than sanity. Very nice examples can sell from $25k to $30k, but driver-quality Starliners can be had for the mid-teens. Would you tackle this project?
I did tackle a ’53 project while in college. Big Olds engine and 4 speed Hydromatic, total rebuild of the interior, metallic medium blue paint, wider Ford wheels with dog dish caps, and a duel exhaust system. Heavy work done in the parking lot and most everything else in the frat house loft. Spent a lot of time just sitting and looking at that car when not driving it.
People have said that the ’53 Studebaker Starliner 2 door hardtop is one of the most bbeautifully designed cars of all time. I agree. Like Michelle said, it’s a head turner even in this condition. This is one huge project but seriously worth it.
These are quite stylish cars, arodynamics were ahead of anyone else at the time. This example needs some heavy lifting to bring it back, but if someone decides to take on this project and gets it done that’s great.
The design shares a characteristic of the ’55 Chevy..every line is in place and it’s very clean. You don’t need to add gee-gaws and tinsel to a design to make it attractive, if you do then your design is bad to begin with.
Looks far FAR better than a 55 Chevy!
Far FAR better looking than a 55 Chevy!
Correction, the Studebaker six was a flathead, not a V6. Otherwise I agree with everyone who says these cars are iconically beautiful. And the ’53-54s were the most attractive.
Dang, you’re right about the engine, I knew that. Sorry!
A flathead inline six.
I really like these. Black paint and Moon discs!
One of the most beautiful post war cars, and totally blows away any contemporary cars. If you see one of these among other mid 50’s cars the contrast is amazing.
Due to the slippery body, you can find a lot of these on the Bonneville Salt Flats.
I saw a yellow one at the old Loring Air Force base in Aroostook Maine. It had the biggest turbo I have ever seen, with show car good looks.
Someone makes fiberglass copies of these bodies for that very reason
This and the 54 are the highlights of this Studebaker body style. IMO they ruined the look when they went to the high fins of the Hawk and the big Chrysler 300 grill (although they were first). This design should never have been altered. I know, I know, there are others on this forum who love the Hawks, their fins and grill. Not me. And to compare this design to any of the Tri-5 Chevies is sacrilege…again IMO. I’ve written before about my 54 Champion 2dr Coupe (with B-pillar) and it’s 289 62 Hawk V8 (a great engine). One of the problems with this design is the weight of the doors causing sag over time…true of any pillarless car of the time. The automatic puts me off. I know that the 3-on-the-tree-w/ OD had a hillholder, but I was unaware that the automatic had it as well. Frankly, anyone who can drive a stick properly didn’t need that feature. Where I grew up, on the steep banks of the east side of the Hudson River, you learned quickly how to properly use the clutch when getting off the brake on an upward slope. Fortunately for this project, parts are readily available and if you DIY it, getting it driveable shouldn’t be too hard. There are many customized versions of this at car shows, for good reason. It’s a great design, and a pretty well-made car.
Sounds like you’re talking about Cold Spring, or a few spots in Poughkeepsie…
Ossining
The automatics didn’t have a hill-holder, per se. They had an anti-creep system that kept you stopped in drive with your foot off the brake. Not sure if it also kept your car from rolling backward if you were on an incline. The hill-holder only worked on an uphill incline. Laslty, overdrive was only available on the manual-shift cars.
Agreed, all, but one must remember that underneath, other than the V-8 engine, this was NOT a good car. The chassis was not strong and allowed way too much flex. Studebaker tried to overcome that by stating that it “allowed for better ride characteristics” or something like that. This was the beginning of the end of Studebaker’s “good” cars. Please don’t try to convince anyone that the Lark was good; it was a turd. It just happened to be the right size at the right time.
Wrong John….a lot of guys started racing Bonnieville with bigger engines in 1953 and still run that stock chassie today. Would guess you’ve never owned one or a Lark.
You are correct, stillrunners, that I’ve never owned one but was around many of them during my “formative years” years as a car nut, and went on to have a forty-plus year career in the industry. A race car does not beget a good daily driver. Had an uncle that had a Lark, so some experience there, but also what I’ve read. Though he took incredibly good care of his Lark they just were not good cars except for the engines. Had a car nut friend who had a ’64 GT Hawk and as I stated, it was beautiful and frankly I really liked that car.
I don’t understand why people say the Lark was junk. Other than the new shortened-wheelbase frame and the Lark bolt-on sheetmetal, everything mechanical (engines, transmissions, rear axles, suspensions, brakes, etc.) was borrowed from previous Hawks and sedans. So what made them a “turd”?
The body was stiffened for ’54, but otherwise looks much the same. The couple with the B pillar was stiffer, all thorough the Hawk and Gran Turisimo days, but without the B pillar, to me, looks better, but less room in the rear seat.
The V8 had what Consumer Reports used to call “drivability problems” meaning unless properly tuned, and returned, it ran rough, or stalled easily, or ran not at all. But, when it ran well, it ran well. Just a little blue smoke.
And my father’s ’38 Commander had a hill holder, “so you got backed into stopped at an uphill traffic light, since the car in front of you did not have a hill holder, and it was a trick to release it.” My 2014 Audi, automatic, has a hill holder, pretty invisible to the user and just about nobody has a stick shift any more.
I’ve had several V8 Studebakers and have never experienced those sort of drivability problems. Sure, they had to be tuned regularly, but that’s true of any engine from the days of points and condensers. Never even had any blue smoke except for one memorable event which was the only time I got talked into racing.
It was my 60 Hawk, with a 259 (not the original engine), and automatic. I raced a guy with a Caprice with a 350… and smoked him. That’s also when I discovered that at high revs the oil drain holes in the heads weren’t quite big enough. At high revs oil would built up under the valve covers until it got to the top of the valve stems, then it would drain into the combustion chambers and burn.
Exactly right. You could have a quart in each valve cover in a 6 quart system. I replaced the valve stem seals with a special type that you had to turn the top of the valve guide in order to fit them. I also knurled the valve guides. There are some who put an external drain on the valve covers down to the pan. If the 232 (not one I had heard of before) or the 259 are like to 289, there’s 0.090 room to bore them out. Massive crank; huge swept bearing area. Can you say overbuilt!!!
Drag raced two ’53s over a two year period with engines putting out over 350 hp and had no chassis problems. My chassis had the B pillar and came with the V8. The other one had no B pillar and had the bigger engine. No problems there either.
I turned 16 in 1963 and my brother (used car dealer) had one on the lot, customized, “souped up” big motor floor shift to the max. i wanted it bad, but he wouldn’t sell it to me. probably saved my life. It would make a remarkable custom but there is little interest in these. sink 50 /75K but it would still be worth 35K. if I was younger I would give it a try.
I LOVED these, when they came out! And WHAT a change from the 1947-1952 Studebakers! — while still retaining a general “look” which was unmistakably Studebaker. Like all Studes from 1947, forward, these rusted badly, especially at the cowl vent. And as others have said, these had various physical and mechanical issues. The ’54, with its bulbous tail-lights, began the trend toward excess which came to full bloom with the 1955 model. The Hawk was fun in front, hideous in the rear. They finally got it right in 1962 when they got rid of those awful fins and made the Turismo Hawk dressy and classy. 1964 was the best-looking of those. The WORST -looking of the Hawks, was the Packard version which had the face of a catfish! AND the awful fins! GAG me!
Completely agree, Harrison; the ’62-’64 GT Hawks were gorgeous. Also agree regarding the pseudo-Packard Hawks; hideous. I use the term pseudo-Packard because the last REAL Packards were the ’56 models.
This has a 55 trunk lid
Sorry to say; heavily overpriced, will be a nice project for someone with more years to finish than I have. Otherwise I hope that it will be saved and proudly driven to show what Stude contributed to the (my) american dream. Back in the day I started with an Belgium built `59 black Silver Hawk with red interior and the optional reclining front – sleeper bench. Followed by a 57 Golden Hawk project that outrun Trans Ams and Porshes, be it on Avgas with the supercharcher howling. That car had an original sliding roof and all emblems were replated in 18 karat gold. I liked the 18″ 1958 wheels and covers so they were fitted, also not having the original interior, I put in the white leather 1964 GT upholstery. repaint in original blue metallic. Headliner was renewed and the roof exterior was upholstered in white . All metal was sandblasted and painted with polychromat army coating and black paint afterwards. even the outer panels from the doors were dismantheled later to spotwlded back. than it was treated three times with Tectyl antirust coating to prevent oxidation for 100 years. Suspension was new with NOS parts and in rear added with a original torsion bar. just to add that I had all special tools for maintenance, even for the supercharger.
the shocks were special made for and factory fitted on the car by Monroe Belgium. I was told they were originally for Cadillac.
Exhaust system was made from 2″ metal electrical pipes with Buick dampers. everything else was original.
Also had a ’57 silver Hawk HT, a ’60 Hawk, a 62 GT, a 64 GT,
and a “60 Lark 6 HT.
This looks like a nice orginal one to start with and not really seeing the normal lower rust on the front fenders or do my eye glasses need cleaning….?
To John E. Klintz: I agree completely: the Packard-Bakers were not and are not Packards in any sense; they were hastily badge-engineered Studebakers — and nowhere nearly as well done as the Nash-based Hudsons. Very sad end for Packard!
Couldn’t agree more, Harrison; very well stated. I’ve said for years that if Packard had survived, there would have been no need for Lexus in the market as they had many practices, including how they treated their dealer body very similar to those at Lexus. We could spend hours on “if only” discussions regarding this. A sad end to a truly great automobile manufacturer.
To John E. Klintz: Too bad that Packard didn’t buy the Briggs Coachworks instead of ailing Studebaker!
Not familiar with that one, Harrison, but I trust your response. They had management at the time similar to some of the car companies today…”let’s do what we want and hope the market follows instead of following the market.” Instead of building a new facility and buying ailing Studebaker if they had invested in the V-8 sooner, along with a sheet metal refresh, they may have been able to survive longer. Who knows?
Packard’s superior bodies were a product of the Briggs Coachworks, a long-established premium-quality builder pre-dating the automobile. When Packard bought Studebaker in 1954, not realising that Studebaker was drowning in red ink; rhe plan was for Nash to acquire Hudson, then for a great merger as “American Motors”, Packard, Hudson, Nash, Studebaker. At about this same time, Chrysler acquired Briggs as a way to deprive Packard of their fine quality bodies (as with Tucker, The Big Three were constantly working to squeeze independent automakers out of business). Meanwhile, the head of Nash-Hudson unexpectedly died, and George Romney took over. Romney refused to honour the previous contract-agreement with Packard, leaving Packard mired in Studebaker’s debts. On top of that, Packard’s body-building had to hastily move into cramped quarters in South Bend, and for the first time, ever, in 1955, Packard suffered from build quality control problems — fatal for a premium manufacturer. By the time they got the “kinks” worked out by about April of 1955, it was too late: the evil word about Packard was out — jokes were made about “ask the man who owns one” — it was essentially over for Packard. Word got out about Studebaker’s money-troubles, and Americans steered clear of Packard. The rest is history.
Wow; thank you, Harrison Reed! Some of that history I knew, other parts I did not like the part about Briggs Coachworks. The Tucker story is one of my favorites as well; the movie with Jeff Bridges is highly recommended.
Poppy, take a look at the comments here. Stude had notoriously bad management from the late ’30’s onward and it finally caught up with them. Packard failed to delve into that when they bought Studebaker in1954. The Lark indeed made money for them largely due to its “right sizing”. In terms of engineering it was obsolete when introduced and did not have good rust proofing and other build quality techniques that were becoming commonplace. Then the issues as noted above with the V-8 when “pushed.” As a result, many people who bought one did just that…ONE. They did not return for another even though by ’62 and ’63 the Lark did get better. Too little, WAY too late.
And maybe the story that the V8 could not be “pushed” explains my uncle’s dissatisfaction with his ’51 Starlight Coupe. He was a macho man who did everything large, muscles, attitude toward women, all I ever saw him do was get many speeding tickets. I am sure he pushed the Stude beyond normal limits. Traded it in on a ’54 Olds which he could and did push very hard – lighting acceleration (for an automatic) – and fast – 80 – 85 mph all day where he could, which was a lot to ask of a car in the ’50’s.
The only problem when ‘pushed’, i.e. high rpm for a long time, was the oil in valve covers. The 289 engine otherwise ran well. It’s a basic pushrod V8 with oversize everything (bearings, crank, cylinder walls). External drains solve the oil-in-valve-cover problem since you can’t really bore the oil drains larger in the block (although it might be interesting to try). Otherwise it was a great engine and better than it’s competing GM 283 and Ford 289 in all other engineering ways.
JEK – I’m not saying they were perfect. I’m saying that if the Lark was indeed a “turd”, then by your definition ALL ’50s-’60s Studebakers were (which I don’t agree with). Same V8, same poor rustproofing, same build techniques, etc. were common for all their cars except maybe the Avanti. I just don’t think any of your issues cited are unique to the Lark. Corvettes has center-point steering and kingpin front suspensions up until ’63, so I’m not sure Studebaker engineering was really all that far behind the Big 3 when the Lark was introduced.
Good points, Poppy, and I don’t disagree. I’m thinking of early ’60’s compacts like the Pontiac Tempest, Plymouth Valiant, and indeed the Corvair. These were definitely on the “leading edge” of auto tech at the time. The “freshened” styling of the Lark in ’61 definitely made it look much better and more upscale, so I assumed that they also improved the body and powertrain, though I do not know that.
Okay, yes, compared to the all-new compact offerings from the big three in the early ’60s, the Lark probably felt cheap. I’m sure the GT Hawk also didn’t seem as solid as the T-Bird and Riviera.
The 53-54 Studebakers were/are one the most beautiful auto designs to ever roll on the highway. They look good moving or sitting. I read a while back that the ‘Baker V-8s were loosely designed after the first-generation Cadillacs. A few of the parts from the Caddy like the intake manifolds would bolt on.
I agree, the 53-54 were gorgeous cars. So were the subsequent Hawks.
To John E. Klintz: the Jeff Bridges portrayal of Preston Tucker is a combination of some history and a great deal of phantasy. But the movie is endlesslessly entertaining, and just the way you’d LIKE to believe that it was — wonderfully cast! (including Lloyd Bridges as the antagonistic Senator: father and son must have had lots of private fun with that!). The real Preston Tucker was much less flamboyant — but what Jeff Bridges did with the character made things far more interesting! By the way, did you notice that the “Tucker” that they wrecked, was actually a Studebaker customised to resemble a Tucker?
To John E. Klintz: the Jeff Bridges portrayal of Preston Tucker is a combination of some history and a great deal of phantasy. But the movie is endlesslessly entertaining, and just the way you’d LIKE to believe that it was — wonderfully cast! (including Lloyd Bridges as the antagonistic Senator: father and son must have had lots of private fun with that!). The real Preston Tucker was much less flamboyant — but what Jeff Bridges did with the character made things far more interesting! By the way, did you notice that the “Tucker” that they wrecked, was actually a Studebaker customised to resemble a Tucker?
To John E. Klintz: the Jeff Bridges portrayal of Preston Tucker is a combination of some history and a great deal of phantasy. But the movie is endlesslessly entertaining, and just the way you’d LIKE to believe that it was — wonderfully cast! (including Lloyd Bridges as the antagonistic Senator: father and son must have had lots of private fun with that!). The real Preston Tucker was much less flamboyant — but what Jeff Bridges did with the character made things far more interesting! By the way, did you notice that the “Tucker” that they wrecked, was actually a Studebaker customised to resemble a Tucker?
To John E. Klintz: the Jeff Bridges portrayal of Preston Tucker is a combination of some history and a great deal of phantasy. But the movie is endlesslessly entertaining, and just the way you’d LIKE to believe that it was — wonderfully cast! (including Lloyd Bridges as the antagonistic Senator: father and son must have had lots of private fun with that!). The real Preston Tucker was much less flamboyant — but what Jeff Bridges did with the character made things far more interesting! By the way, did you notice that the “Tucker” that they wrecked, was actually a Studebaker customised to resemble a Tucker?
To John E. Klintz: the Jeff Bridges portrayal of Preston Tucker is a combination of some history and a great deal of phantasy. But the movie is endlesslessly entertaining, and just the way you’d LIKE to believe that it was — wonderfully cast! (including Lloyd Bridges as the antagonistic Senator: father and son must have had lots of private fun with that!). The real Preston Tucker was much less flamboyant — but what Jeff Bridges did with the character made things far more interesting! By the way, did you notice that the “Tucker” that they wrecked, was actually a Studebaker customised to resemble a Tucker?
Yes; excellent movie though the time frame around which it took place was compressed for the movie. I’ve said for years that if Tucker had made it, we would have had better cars sooner. And yes I do remember them using a moderately disguised Studebaker for the production scenes. Good catch!
To John E. Klintz: Regardlees of its “creative licence”, I have loved “Tucker: The Man And His Dream” ever since it first came out in the late 1980s. As I said previously, regardless of how it actually was, this movie is how you WANT it to have been.
Couldn’t agree more, Harrison; thank you for the informed comments!
To Jogn Klintz: Thumbs-Up!!!
To John Klintz: Thumbs-Up!!!