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
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
Comment