PDA

View Full Version : Differences in the 6 cyl 59 and 60 Larks, OD?



Spule 4
12-27-2006, 10:54 AM
All:

In the acticles collected in the Brooklands book on Hawks and Larks, there are a couple mentions about economy and performance differences between the 1959 and 60 by Road and Track, and even a comment that the V8 1959 cars were more efficient than the 6 for that year.

What were the real differences? The R&T article of January 1960 talks about carb, combustion chamber and gear ratio changes, and that the car was a bit heavier.

But, the article gets interesting, the '59 had a 3.54 rear end Vs. 4.10 for the '60 test cars. They also stated that the OD was not useful on the '60 and top speed was lower in OD than direct drive, as tourqe and wind resistance were factors.

For the '59 the 3.54 rear must make acelleration terrible (guessing here) and the factors of wind resistance and "having to keep your foot in it" for hills would be the negative to economy with such a rear end.

Having owned a Volvo 122 wagon with an OD that someone added to the car later, I have always liked ODs. On that car, it was the best of all worlds as it was a four speed OD, the rear end was 4.56 (or close, going by memory).

....but it appears that on the small six, the OD may not be the best bet?

The drwaback would be 60 MPH = >3,000 RPM, making modern interstate speeds a noisy go?

This all is assumption and what I have seen, so feel free to correct me where wrong. The only Stude I even came close to owning was a non driving 1962 Lark VI automatic a friend gave me 15 or so years ago, but I never picked it up, I was in college and had too many cars at the time.

Thanks!

Garrett

John Kirchhoff
12-27-2006, 12:30 PM
An engine will be most fuel efficient when operating at its torque peak rpm because the torque peak is nothing more than the rpm at which the engine produces the most power with the fewest rpms. That's as long as the load is in proportion to the power output. In other words, a constant 100hp load powered by an engine that produces 100hp at its torque peak of 2,500 rpm. This engine will have better fuel economy than will a smaller engine producing 100hp at an rpm above it's torque peak (say 4000 rpm) or a bigger engine producing 100hp below its torque peak (say 1500 rpm). Of course with a car, there's no such thing as a constant load because of wind, up and down hills, etc. For fuel effeciency and varying load handling ability, farm tractors are designed to produce their maximum torque at 80% of rated rpm (usually the hp peak). In other words, an engine with a rated rpm of 2000 rpm would have its torque peak at 1600 rpm. That way, when a heavier load is encountered and rpm drops, the hp produced per rpm actually increases and lugs you through the tough spot. Some new tractors actually maintain or increase hp as rpms drop through the use of increased fuel delivery to an engine capable of making more hp that it does at rated rpm. For example, the injection pump on an engine capable of making 200 hp at 1600 rpm and 225 hp at 2000 rpm hp is calibrated to inject enough fuel to produce 200 hp at all engine speeds from 1600 to 2000 rpm. "Constant power" was a term used for this by one manufacture.

Roscomacaw
12-27-2006, 01:37 PM
Whew! John, do you moonlight as a college perfesser?;)
What I can say is that I've owned a couple of 60 Lark 6s and I wouldn't want one without the OD function. Without OD (and backed by a rear axle you could drive comfortably with), that engine's gonna really be singing at about 55MPH. 65 will have you thanking Studebaker for having used forged cranks in all their engines.
OD makes 70+MPH possible until you encounter a long grade. If it's an uphill grade, 70+ will fade. If it's a downhill grade, look for the thrill of 80![:p]

When I acquired our 60 Lark convert in '85, I opted for one of the replacement engine kits from old Newman & Altman. The 170 is what the car had come with originally. The engine went together nicely and ran like the proverbial "sewing machine". In fact, I think it was quieter than the wife's White!:) Thing is, I could JUST BARELY keep up with Los Angeles freeway traffic with that 6O/D combo. Only in O/D with my foot flat to the floor, could I muster anything that would let me not poke along between to semi trucks. And those puny 6cyl brakes were thrill-inducing after a few spirited stops!:( The resultant transformation to V8 underpinnings made the car a dream to drive. (I might add that I'd advocate the switch to V8 brakes even WITH the 6 if I were to have another.)

Living where I do now, I've toyed with the idea of having a 6cyl Stude again (170 Flathead) since the traffic would be easier on it. The 61 Lark 6 that I had the pleasure of experiencing around here awhile back, proved to me that a 6 could be a cool go-to-town car. While it WAS an OHV 6 that proved (on disassembly by the next owner) to have been hopped up, it still wasn't a V8 by any means.

Miscreant adrift in
the BerStuda Triangle
http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/906179/2006/12/7/truckonhill3.jpg

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe

tstclr
12-27-2006, 03:14 PM
I agree with you Biggs. The more I drive my auto equipped 64 with the 170, the more it reminds me of that book "The Little Engine that Could". It's pretty much going to stay in town and on the smaller 2 lane highways (and even that's a stretch) It'd be nice to muster another 20 horses out of it...

Todd


63 Lark 2dr Sedan
64 Daytona 4dr Sedan

Dick Steinkamp
12-27-2006, 04:13 PM
quote:Originally posted by John Kirchhoff

An engine will be most fuel efficient when operating at its torque peak rpm


You sure?

My Starliner with a 327 Chevy and 3:54 rear end has a torque peak (from actual chassis dyno results) of 3800 RPM. In my car, that would be about 80 MPH in high gear. I guarantee I get better mileage at 3000 RPM in high gear than at the torque peak in high gear. I also guarantee that if I run in third gear at 3800 RPM I get worse mileage than running in high gear at the same road speed (lower RPM).

My 2001 GMC with a 4L80E runs under 1500 RPM on the highway (below the torque peak) in OD. If I shift out of OD into D, RPMs increase to near the torque peak and I get worse mileage.

On 6 speed Corvettes, the top 2 gears are OD's. In 6th (.49 OD), the engine is turning quite slow on the highway (far below the torque peak) and the car gets the best mileage compared with running in any other gear at higher RPMs (nearer the torque peak).

A '60 Lark V8 OD came standard with a 3:54 rear end. That motor made 260 pounds of torque at 2800 RPM. With 26.5" tall tires, this would be a road speed of 62 MPH NOT in OD. In OD (.7), the engine would turn 2000 RPMs at this road speed. Did this car actually get better gas mileage by never using the OD?

My experience has been that the fewer RPM's you can turn (without having to use a lot of throttle to maintain those RPM's) the better mileage you will get. In all cases I can think of, this would be well below the torque peak (possible exceptions might be some diesel engines).





http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/334764891_cb023f0fb1_m.jpg
Dick Steinkamp
Bellingham, WA

r1lark
12-27-2006, 04:54 PM
quote:Originally posted by tstclr

I agree with you Biggs. The more I drive my auto equipped 64 with the 170, the more it reminds me of that book "The Little Engine that Could". It's pretty much going to stay in town and on the smaller 2 lane highways (and even that's a stretch) It'd be nice to muster another 20 horses out of it...
Todd
63 Lark 2dr Sedan
64 Daytona 4dr Sedan


I guess I will weigh in here. I have experience with two 6 cylinder Studes....my '64 Commander, and my '54 Champion everyday driver....and also several V8 Studebakers.

(Caution: long winded<G>)

The '64 Commander was the proverbial 'old maid schoolteacher's car' when I bought it. 170 OHV six and auto, 4 doors, 36 or 38,000 miles. The old schoolteacher quit driving in the '70s, and when she died the heirs took the car to a jackleg mechanic to get it running. He pulled the head, found that the head gasket had leaked anti-freeze into a couple of cylinders, and told the owners there were no parts available. The car was pushed out with a for sale sign, and was $2500 the first time I stopped. Long story short, a year later (1989) it was mine for a tenth of that, mainly to get the trunklid. But....after a weekend of scrubbing the interior looked like new, The paint rubbed out great except on the front fenders and hood which was repainted, and on the coldest day of 1989 Carl Shontz and I pulled the engine. Bored .020" and put back together with the original bearings, etc. I took the automatic to a guy in our local SDC club who did auto transmissions for a living. The first time out to a meet, the tranny went 90 miles and started slipping. Ray F. had a '63 Lark with a 3spd/OD, so I got all the parts and converted it to OD. At Carl Shontz's prompting, I changed the rear axle to a NOS 4.27:1 ratio rear axle, which was not one of the 'normal' ratios in 1964. Believe me, the 3 speed manual with O/D is night and day difference compared to the auto. I wouldn't say it is quick, but after riding in it several experienced Stude owners have asked me when I swapped in the V8!! Cruising at 65 - 70 on the interstate is not a problem, unless the hills get steep. The big difference is that with the six you have to [u]anticipate</u> the hills, and make adjustments to hold your speed, whereas a V8 you don't have to worry about this; on a long (couple day) trip, I prefer a V8 Lark or Hawk because of this.

My '54 Champion is noticably down on 'get up and go' compared to the OHV six, but it also had a broken compression ring and piston land, and several burnt exhaust valves. (It is getting a NOS fitted piston block from SASCO right now.) This car was originally a straight 3 speed, and now has O/D, but with the original 4.11:1 axle ratio. A lot of the six/ODs got a 4.89:1 rear axle ratio in the '50s, so this car is kinda the opposite from its '64 brother. I have a 4.89:1 r/a ratio (actually, I still need to get it....right Perry?&lt;G&gt;) to put in it, and probably will at some point. But I do belive the car will be much peppier with a 4.89:1 r/a ratio.

So, (finally close to the end&lt;G&gt;) as far as the six cylinder Studebaker engines in my experience, a manual makes a big difference, [u]and IMHO the proper choice of rear axle ratio is VERY important</u>. With the O/D, you can choose a slightly lower r/a ratio to make the car more peppy around town and still have highway speed. And with a heavier car (like a convertible or sliding roof wagon) you may want an even lower r/a ratio to help you get going, but at the sacrifice of some highway speed.

Paul

Visit The Studebaker Skytop Registry website at: http://hometown.aol.com/r1skytop/myhomepage/index.html

Roscomacaw
12-27-2006, 05:26 PM
BTW, my 60 6cyl 3spdOD ragtop came with a 4.10 RA. In fitting it with the V8 auto, I went to a 3.54 RA.:D

Miscreant adrift in
the BerStuda Triangle
http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/906179/2006/12/7/truckonhill3.jpg

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe

Spule 4
12-27-2006, 09:57 PM
Again, thanks for the replies to the newbie questions.....including spelling out the torque bit by John, it put a bunch of thoughts together in my mind and added a few.


quote:Originally posted by r1lark

I guess I will weigh in here. I have experience with two 6 cylinder Studes....my '64 Commander, and my '54 Champion everyday driver....and also several V8 Studebakers.

(Caution: long winded&lt;G&gt;)

The '64 Commander was the proverbial 'old maid schoolteacher's car' when I bought it. Ray F. had a '63 Lark with a 3spd/OD, so I got all the parts and converted it to OD. At Carl Shontz's prompting, I changed the rear axle to a NOS 4.27:1 ratio rear axle, which was not one of the 'normal' ratios in 1964. Believe me, the 3 speed manual with O/D is night and day difference compared to the auto. I wouldn't say it is quick, but after riding in it several experienced Stude owners have asked me when I swapped in the V8!! Cruising at 65 - 70 on the interstate is not a problem, unless the hills get steep. The big difference is that with the six you have to [u]anticipate</u> the hills, and make adjustments to hold your speed, whereas a V8 you don't have to worry about this; on a long (couple day) trip, I prefer a V8 Lark or Hawk because of this.

So, (finally close to the end&lt;G&gt;) as far as the six cylinder Studebaker engines in my experience, a manual makes a big difference, [u]and IMHO the proper choice of rear axle ratio is VERY important</u>. With the O/D, you can choose a slightly lower r/a ratio to make the car more peppy around town and still have highway speed. And with a heavier car (like a convertible or sliding roof wagon) you may want an even lower r/a ratio to help you get going, but at the sacrifice of some highway speed.

Paul



First, I have owned a lot of old and new cars, including some that were "dogs" by many in the world. While some were, others, such as my Citroen ID19 were not as bad as many made them out to be.

Until I bought my 2007 Honda Fit this spring (my first new car in my life) my daily ride was a 1993 Geo Metro, so I know a lot about planing out going up a hill[:p]. Ditto with the 300D Merc, the speed you hit the bottom of the hill was the max, as long as no one slowed you down. We have some good hill here in Middle Tennessee on our interstates.

One other bit I have found digging in some other fourm posts that may be at play here is the use of different sizes of tires. It appears that many are using 195/75-205/70 15s. While the larger sized ones will help on top speed, acceleration is going to take a hit. I am surprised to see folks running these tires when say, 165R15 to 185/70 15 ($$) are a better match for 5.90 and 6.00 15 of the original cars.

Thanks for the input, the "old car itch" is hitting me again, and a Stude Lark 6 is on my short list. So it is the homework stage now.

Garrett

John Kirchhoff
12-27-2006, 10:34 PM
Dick, I'm in no way trying to be a smart butt, but actually I am sure. Everything you said makes perfect sense but how can we both be right? Maybe I didn't put enough emphasis on the sentence "As long as the load is in proportion to the power output". When your Chevy engine is turning 3800 rpm, I'd bet dollars to donuts that it's cranking out double the horsepower that's actually needed to overcome wind resistance, engine friction and energy lost as the resiliency of the rubber tires convert motion into heat. The problem with an automobile is that a certain amout of power reserve needs to be on hand for climbing inclines and accelerating when passing. I won't annoy you with the particulars of my calculations, but a 3,600 lb Hawk traveling 60 mph up a 4% grade requires 23 hp per minute just to lift the weight of the car up that grade. That doesn't include wind resistance or anything else, just the power necessary to lift 3,600 pounds 211 feet in one minute. Using hp figures for a 289 engine that generates 174 hp at its torque peak of 3000 rpm and 225 hp at 4500 rpm and assuming the power output is linear (I'm sure its not but we won't quibble over minutia), it would require an additional 675 rpm to generate the additional 23 horsepower. And if you ain't got it, you're gonna be shifting! (Incidently, shifting from overdrive to direct drive would net you around 800 rpm, so those Stude engineers knew what they were doing.) Using drag data from an old road test, it appears to move our Hawk down the road at 64 mph requires approximately 100 hp but the engine would be producing in the neighborhood of 165-170 hp at that same ground speed. Add in variable parasitic losses such as electrical generation, 1-5 hp, fan blade, up to 5 hp, variable loads depending upon rpm from the water pump and engine friction, possible variable loads from power steering and AC plus reserve power for climbing hills and accelerating, you can see the Hawk probably has an extra unneeded 50 hp on level ground at 60 mph. Then remember that doubling the speed requires four times the hp and that engines normally don't increase power geometrically, there's no way to match load with engine output. That's the reasoning behind the variable ratio tranmissions. The engine produces only as much power as is required at that particular instant with no extra power produced until needed.

As far as your Stude and GMC go, I'll bet that when you go to pass someone in your Stude, you just stomp the gas pedal and the other guy gets left in a hurry without you ever bothering to shift. Pass the same guy at the same rate of acceleration with your GMC and I'm sure it'll shift out of overdrive and the converter may unlock as well to get the necessary rpms to do the job. In high gear, I'm sure the GMC is more closely matched when it comes to power required and power produced. With either engine though, you can be assured that both will produce the most power using the least amount of fuel at their torque peak rpm. There isn't any getting around it, it's the result of a balancing act between friction, cylinder filling effeciency (valve overlap and the speed/inertia of the intake-exhaust flow), thermal dynamics, accelleration-decelleration of mechanical components and so on. Much to complicated for me to ever understand! By the way, about the only application where you can closely match power input-output requirements is with an irrigation pump.

And no Mr. Biggs, I guess I need to get myself a life. I'm the kind of smuck that reads shop manuals, road maps and technical journals. For fun no less. In the bathroom, you'll currently find two Chilton manuals (not for TP!). Not having anything better to do lately, I've been teaching myself electronics and to speak German. I guess never having gone to college has paid off; if I had I wouldn't have anything to do with my time now! Having an excellent memory also helps, except when being married. It's ok for a woman to remember our screw ups, but guys aren't afforded the same priviledge. That's when a g

62champ
12-27-2006, 11:16 PM
quote:Originally posted by Spule 4

All:
What were the real differences? The R&T article of January 1960 talks about carb, combustion chamber and gear ratio changes, and that the car was a bit heavier.

But, the article gets interesting, the '59 had a 3.54 rear end Vs. 4.10 for the '60 test cars. They also stated that the OD was not useful on the '60 and top speed was lower in OD than direct drive, as tourqe and wind resistance were factors.

Garrett


Garrett,

I think to answer your original question, there was little to no difference between the 59 and 60, other than the ones mentioned with the rear ratios.

Studebaker did the same thing. I have a copy of the film promoting the new '64 Larks. They mention the "powerful V8 - all new for '64".

Guess we have to ask ourselves the question - why stay with the '59 model when the '60 is so much better...

1960 Lark VI - finally turned 50k in August of 2006

Spule 4
12-28-2006, 12:19 AM
quote:Originally posted by 62champ
Garrett,

I think to answer your original question, there was little to no difference between the 59 and 60, other than the ones mentioned with the rear ratios.

Studebaker did the same thing. I have a copy of the film promoting the new '64 Larks. They mention the "powerful V8 - all new for '64".

Guess we have to ask ourselves the question - why stay with the '59 model when the '60 is so much better...

1960 Lark VI - finally turned 50k in August of 2006


Ah, but is the 60 that much better, or is it a matter of the rear end being the issue here? For the very reason you posted, was the head and carb actually different between the two years? So is your post saying the 60 is better, or the rationale of stating by Stude et al that it was better?

R&T also mention a difference in quality and feel (door fit and trim), but I am sure this difference would be slim to none 45+ years after the fact?

I have never owned a car with a flathead motor, for some reason, this is of interest to me, so that is the reasoning behind my questions between 1959 and 60, and a few other cars I have been studying up on.

The practical side should push for the OHV 6 tho and a few more horses under the hood....

Garrett

bams50
12-28-2006, 06:11 AM
I'm a relative rookie with Studes; but I believe the 59s and 60s are pretty much identical. For 61 they made several changes in details- interior, taillights, quad headlights available, suspended pedals replacing through-the-floor, and the OHV 6.

It is my understanding that the flattie is overall a better engine than the OHV... the OHV head has a tendency to crack, for one thing. It may make slightly more power, but it seems like a wash to me overall.

Robert K. Andrews Owner- IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys!)
Parish, central NY 13131
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2358680/1

62champ
12-28-2006, 09:50 AM
quote:Originally posted by Spule 4


Ah, but is the 60 that much better, or is it a matter of the rear end being the issue here? For the very reason you posted, was the head and carb actually different between the two years? So is your post saying the 60 is better, or the rationale of stating by Stude et al that it was better?

Garrett


I guess what I was trying to say is that at the time Studebaker wanted the '60 model Lark to look better than the '59 by stating there were changes which made the car better. In actual fact, I believe the cars were practically the same.

Studebaker came out with the Champion flathead six in 1939 and they had years to make changes, but I do not think that included from '59 to '60 (they probably already knew it was on the way out because of the new OHV six so why dump more money into it...)

Now the one thing that would make it better is if they went back to the 185 cu inch six they had from 1955 to 1958. Those extra 15 cubic inches will make a difference.

As mentioned above, the OHV six did have problems with the heads, but I have heard the main reason for that was people lugging the engine. Unless you really dog the flathead, you are not going to hurt it. I have an uncle who used to drive on some 200+ mile trips with a friend in a Studebaker 1/2 ton pickup (without OD) at speeds of 70 and 75 mph without any problems.

Good luck on your search and you have found a great place to post questions. Do not think anyone has calculated it yet, but there are a couple of centuries worth of Studebaker experience here on this forum.


1960 Lark VI - finally turned 50k in August of 2006

Roscomacaw
12-28-2006, 06:13 PM
Garrett, are you sure you're not confusing 1960 with 1961? '61 is when the OHV six was introduced. 59 & 60 are virtually the SAME car! VERY minor trim differences exist between the two along with the fact that a convertible and 4-dr wagon were intro'd in '60. [?]

Miscreant adrift in
the BerStuda Triangle
http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/906179/2006/12/7/truckonhill3.jpg

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe

Spule 4
12-28-2006, 08:58 PM
quote:Originally posted by Mr.Biggs

Garrett, are you sure you're not confusing 1960 with 1961? '61 is when the OHV six was introduced. 59 & 60 are virtually the SAME car! VERY minor trim differences exist between the two along with the fact that a convertible and 4-dr wagon were intro'd in '60. [?]

Miscreant adrift in
the BerStuda Triangle
http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/906179/2006/12/7/truckonhill3.jpg



Good point, but no, as listed this is in the January 1960 issue of R&T and mentiones the 1960 and 59 quite in depth. I think the point of marketing difference "New in 1960!!" is at play here as posted above.

garyash
12-28-2006, 10:28 PM
John, you have to remember that just because an engine is turning at a certain rpm, it doesn't mean it's producing its maximum horsepower. Example: any car going down hill can reach high rpms with the throttle closed. It just means that at any given speed, we need to push the gas pedal down enough to generate the horsepower required to match the air friction and rolling losses - and the up-hill power requirements that you mentioned.

The engine ratings mean that if the load on the engine exceeds the horsepower rating, the engine will slow down. The normal way we deal with this on an "up hill", is to shift down a gear so that the engine can meet the torque requirement with the advantage of multiplication by the gearbox ratio. Horsepower is 33,000 ft-lbs per minute per horsepower, so your up-hill calculation of 23 hp needed doesn't need the addition of "per minute".

If the engine is making more horsepower at a given rpm than is needed to maintain speed, the car must be accelerating, not holding constant speed. So, you and StudeBob may both be "right" in your description of your observations. Letting your foot off the gas gets rid of that "extra" horsepower. Actually, I think that doubling the speed takes 8 times as much power, not 4 times. [Which is why my M5 will never go 100 mph, though it will go 70 mph down hill!]. The drag goes up as the square of the speed, the power requirements with the cube of the speed.

The '59 and '60 heads for the Champ engine in the Lark have different part numbers (1959 head = 1547738, 1960 head = 1549218) but both are rated at 8:1 compression. Anyone know what's different between these heads? For what it's worth, the '60 head will fit Champ engines back to 1939.

[img=left]http://www.studegarage.com/images/gary_ash_m5_sm.jpg[/img=left] Gary Ash
Dartmouth, Mass.
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
web site at http://www.studegarage.com

John Kirchhoff
12-28-2006, 11:06 PM
You're very right Gary, I sure don't claim to be a genius by any means. A given rpm is capable of producing X amount of power given enough fuel and air. However, there are limits. Kind of like when I temporarily put a '61 6 cylinder in my Hawk. I'd run 70 in overdrive, but step on the gas and the vacuum would drop like a rock because the throttle was open wider but all it'd do was kind of bellow and gain no speed at all. She had enough power to run 70 but no extra power whatsoever for accelleration. In addition, that thing would only get around 17 mpg no matter what speed I drove; that little engine was just working too hard.

Something else I think was wrong was the 100hp at 64 mph figure I gave. I was using data from an old road test but using "scratch my head" calculations I came up with something more like 50 hp which I believe is more reasonable. Especially if you figure a 225hp Hawk would run say, 110 mph, there's no way it would require 100hp at half that speed. That one dawned on me today when I was drivng and no I wasn't going 110 mph either! Oh, the reason I included the "per minute" was to prevent confusion, especially for myself. I used 60 mph because that's a mile a minute and rpms are per minute, so you probably get the idea. No one ever has to be afraid to point out a mistake I've made because I'll be the first one to admit it. Fortunately an ego is one problem I don't have to contend with although is seems at times I've delt with every other kind of problem imaginable. Hey, I'm rambling and I'm depending upon you guys to keep me on my toes! Thanks!

54-61-62
12-29-2006, 02:15 AM
A studebaker six coupled to an automatic transmission is well a perfect old maid car.

I bought (in a lapse of usually better judgement) a 1962 2dr lark six with auto trans. I must admit upon bringing it home actully driving the car for the first time I was like "what in the hell is wrong here"...turns out thats the normal feeling of a studebaker six auto with 3.73 rear gears, oh and btw it has air conditiong! Okay around town but anything over 60mph it sounds like the little pictons want out of the engine block &lt;G&gt;

I have a 54 Champion 3o/d, and while it is not a powerhouse, it is a much better car and can cruise comfortably at 65mph.

So in closing, If you have a Studebaker Six, make sure it has 3od transmission. Otherwise you will be driving a Model A or T speedwise.

Kent

John Kirchhoff
12-29-2006, 09:35 AM
Kent, I did some figuring and if your car has 205X70X15 tires, it's probably cranking nearly 3000 rpm at 60mph. A standard 3-speed would 3.73 (like mine) would be turning around 2850 at that speed. An overdrive tranny with 4.10 differential would turn around 2200 rpm at 60 in OD. That's around 26% fewer rpms than your car turns, so yes, those little pistons are in a real frenzy!

Oh, if your engine will pull to 4,500 in drive, that should be around 90 mph. That'll give you something to strive for! As my kids would say, "Go for it dude!"

Tom B
12-29-2006, 06:58 PM
I converted my '60 Lark VI from 3 spd to 3 spd OD. It has a 4.11 to 1 Rear Axle. The engine has the 8 1/2:1 high compression head. Tires are 195 75 - 15.

At 60 mph, it is turning 2600 rpm, at 70 mph it is turning 2900. It will go about 80 either in or out of overdrive, but not much more in either one.( I don't have long enough, flat enough roads to go faster) According to Bill Cathcart the 'power range' for this engine should be between 2600 and 2900 rpm. At 60 mph it gets about 25 mpg (24.9), at 70 about 20 (20.22), but it will run at 70 all day long. (Except to get gas.) It does well in hills, slowing down to 60 on the long hills on US 50 in West Virginia.

This engine was NOS in 1974, now has about 10,000 miles on it.

Tom Bredehoft
'53 Commander Coupe
'60 Lark VI
'05 Legacy Ltd Wagon
All three Indiana built OD cars

Spule 4
12-29-2006, 07:53 PM
quote:Originally posted by Tom B

I converted my '60 Lark VI from 3 spd to 3 spd OD. It has a 4.11 to 1 Rear Axle. The engine has the 8 1/2:1 high compression head. Tires are 195 75 - 15.

At 60 mph, it is turning 2600 rpm, at 70 mph it is turning 2900. It will go about 80 either in or out of overdrive, but not much more in either one.( I don't have long enough, flat enough roads to go faster) According to Bill Cathcart the 'power range' for this engine should be between 2600 and 2900 rpm. At 60 mph it gets about 25 mpg (24.9), at 70 about 20 (20.22), but it will run at 70 all day long. (Except to get gas.) It does well in hills, slowing down to 60 on the long hills on US 50 in West Virginia.

Tom Bredehoft



Know the hills on US50 well (years back), used to drive them coming from Athens, OH on my way to PA.

Thanks for the RPM/MPH post. Actually, your car does better than my 2007 Honda in this capacity.

Thanks Tom-

Garrett