[Steve C.]

"...you can now shoot down those folks that claim that the GTO was the first of its kind."

1964 Studebaker Super Lark – A Better GTO?

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/vinta...s-inspiration/



.

[Stuart]

People argue what was the first muscle car all the way back to the 1938 Buick Century.

[Forrest]

So were they ( the lark) actually produced for public purchase?.. if so.. would love to see one somewhere! Anyway.. the GTO was the one that took the market..sorry Studebaker! The GTO stormed sales for many years

[Chief of the 60's]

Studebaker used the words Gran Turismo before Pontiac

[mgarblik]

I am a big Studebaker fan along with a surprising number of Pontiac people. It's an interesting comparison and one I had frankly forgotten about. As mentioned in the article, Studebaker was already in so much financial trouble when this car came out, it really had no chance of catching on and changing the market the way the Pontiac GTO did. Standing on it's own merits as a performance car, the Stude would have held it's own against a basic 4BBL GTO. The Studebaker V-8 is another wonderful engine with really good bones. Strong bottom end, forged crankshaft, decent flowing heads, great cylinder sealing, solid lifters. Lots of good stuff. Their stupid pinch bolt connecting rod retention being the only exception. But the engine was already stretched and couldn't be made larger, making a supercharged version necessary for any real extra power. Pontiac, on the other hand, had a 389 CU IN engine with much more NA torque, and the ability to go much larger, AKA 421 Cu IN. Of course styling is subjective, but to most eyes, the GTO has the looks and a boat load of options not available to the Studebaker. Also, Pontiac and the GTO had Jim Wangers. The media machine was relentless and the tie in's just went on and on. The end result was the GTO being crowned the King of the muscle cars and the Super Lark being mostly forgotten. I would love to have one.

[72pontiac]

see em at the pure stock drags every year along with other studs

[shaker455]

I had a 57' Stude Golden Hawk for past 10 years and that came with a Mccullen supercharger on top of a stude 289 and made a killer 275 HP..lol

[Tenney]

Those Stude's are super-cool, but it's all about the math. Each of the OEM's suddenly needed their own "GTO" circa '65 to compete with the Goat's burgeoning sales - and so began the "era". Might've been fun if they all went supercharged, too, though!

[SR-71]

GTO, first muscle car because of a full size car engine in a midsize car.

[Sirrotica]

There's a shirt for that...…………

[ponyakr]

I suppose the '64 model Buick Skylark, Olds Cutlass/442, and Chevelle also came out in late '63 ?

Anybody know which of the GM A-bodies actually hit the dealer lots 1st, and/or which was the first to sell ?

[JUDGE3]

studes? holding back...…...must not......studes? help me. studes?

[The Champ]

Studebaker never sold enough of these cars to matter.

[carbking]

Originally Posted by SR-71

GTO, first muscle car because of a full size car engine in a midsize car.

Check out the 1930 Packard model 734.

Replaced the standard 319 CID with the large body series 385 CID. Even designed a special intake for a much larger carburetor, thus more power than even the large series car had normally.

The argument can go even further back into the teens when roadsters were equipped with larger engines than sedans of the same series.

Words like "first", "last", "largest", "smallest", etc. can generally be disputed.

Might be entertaining to get a poll on when the "first":

(A) overhead valve engine
(B) overhead cam engine
(C) two barrel carb
(D) four barrel carb
(E) multiple carburetion
(F) largest passenger car engine
(G) V-8 engine

Jon.

[Chief of the 60's]

Originally Posted by carbking

Check out the 1930 Packard model 734.

Replaced the standard 319 CID with the large body series 385 CID. Even designed a special intake for a much larger carburetor, thus more power than even the large series car had normally.

The argument can go even further back into the teens when roadsters were equipped with larger engines than sedans of the same series.

Words like "first", "last", "largest", "smallest", etc. can generally be disputed.

Might be entertaining to get a poll on when the "first":

(A) overhead valve engine
(B) overhead cam engine
(C) two barrel carb
(D) four barrel carb
(E) multiple carburetion
(F) largest passenger car engine
(G) V-8 engine

Jon.

Or an Auburn Speedster

[Half-Inch Stud]

A & B were Pontiac PMD ....right?

1st car Vacuum Gauge
1sr car hood tach
1st VOE exhaust
1st SAE -9640 connecting rods
1st 2 Smokey's everrrrr

[carbking]

HIS - I am not going to pretend to know the answers, only the questions!

There was an overhead valve engine as early as 1910, and an overhead cam engine as early as 1912; both before PMD arrived as the child of Oakland in 1926.

I do not know if others were earlier.

Jon.

[TAKerry]

Age old argument that can never be won. But I dont believe the term 'muscle car' was around until maybe the 60's. My belief is that it has to start someplace and for many years most people have agreed that the GTO is the car that started it all. As a disclaimer I am not a gto owner, have never been and probably never will be, but I still think they are pretty bad@$$ cars.

[ponyakr]

"...But I dont believe the term 'muscle car' was around until maybe the 60's..."

Yeah, I personally don't give a hoot about cars from the early 20th century.

As for Pontiacs, hey, the 421SD cars were pretty strong. And, I assume they were street legal. So, would they pass as a "muscle car" ? Maybe not, since they were put in big body cars.

So, if it had to be a smaller car, such as an A or F-body, then I suppose maybe one of the '64 GM A-bodies would have been the 1st car made that most would call a "muscle car".

But, in the early 60's, there were big cars like the 409 powered Chevy, and the 413 & 426 wedge Mopars that had quite a bit of "muscle". Ford had HP 390 & 406 models.

The little 289 HP Fords were pretty spunky. But, I suppose those did not have euff cubes to quality as a "muscle car", to many. A '63 289HP Fairlane was the 1st car I ever saw that could burn rubber when shifting gears. Was also available in the '64 Mustang. I think most consider the '69 302 Z-28 Camaro as a "muscle car", even with the small cubes. But, I don't know about the 289 HP.

[carbking]

I wasn't trying to be argumentative; rather suggesting that some definitions may not be as accepted.

I don't recall seeing the term "muscle car" appear in print prior to about 1966 or 1967. So does that mean the 1964 GTO doesn't qualify because the term had not yet been coined???

For what its worth, I was a senior in high school in 1964, and was vastly impressed by both the 1964 Mustang, and the 1964 GTO. Could I afford one? I considered myself lucky to have an 8 year old Ford V-8 with about 150,000 miles. 250 kids in high school, and less than 10 had their own cars. Since then, I have owned 4 Mustangs (still have one) and 8 GTO's (still have one).

As far as hooting about cars from the early 20th century: there were lots of interesting cars around. I find the early engineering to be quite fascinating. One car actually had an engine with a stationary crankshaft, with the engine rotating around the crankshaft. Talk about inertia and torque! And for you cubic inch fanatics, how about 991 cubic inches THAT WAS STARTED BY HAND CRANKING! How many of you he-men or wonder-women feel comfortable hand cranking a 455?

Also, a study of early automotive history teaches us that each generation must learn that the members of MADD have been right all along; alcohol and gasoline do not mix!

As far as the Studebakers are concerned, have owned a couple of trucks; never a car. But the 1963/1964 Hawk GT's are absolutely gorgeous.

Jon.