PDA

View Full Version : My Hawk's 40.6 Horsepower-HUH !!



starlightchamp
05-23-2007, 08:28 PM
My manual gives the horsepower of the 289 engine as 40.6 horsepower.
Seems a bit low so how come the specification?? Blame the Brit's.
Back in the 40-60's the English goverment wanted to tax horsepower so the
Royal Auto Club (RAC) devised the formula below.
HP= square of cylinder diameter in inches multiplied by the number of cylinders divided
by 2.5. The 2.5 representing engine efficientcy of the times estimated at 40%.
For the Studebaker 289 with a bore of 3.56 inches, this computes to TA DA!! 40.6 horsepower, the number shown in my Hawk's manual.
Why Studebaker and other U.S companies adopted this almost meaninless rating
I have no idea, What's really funny is, to avoid a lot of tax, many British cars like
Jaguar built under square engines to heep the cylinder bore small and the
"taxable horsepower" low. Small bore -long stroke keeps the tax man away.
Now you know " the rest of the story"

Some day I'll tell you how James Watt, inventor of the steam engine, came up with the
current definition of horsepower as 33,000 foot -pounds /minute. Unbelievable!

...Dick Curtis

John Kirchhoff
05-23-2007, 10:18 PM
Back in the good old days, the license bureau (at least in Illinois) taxed the vehicle based upon the "taxable horsepower". It annoyed my dad that the tax on the 6 cylinder Lark was more than his V-8 Chevy.

Mark57
05-24-2007, 12:08 AM
Interesting as the original Stude shop manual and Parts book (at least for E - 8E trucks) quotes the 40.6 HP rating for all Stude V8 engines (224, 259 & 289).

StudeRich
05-24-2007, 02:56 AM
That's correct! They all have the same BORE!! 3 9/16 in.[:0]

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA

th12t33n
05-24-2007, 09:42 AM
wow something i didnt know. its cool to learn these neat little facts.

Looking to build up my 62 lark daytona 289. any ideas?

Dwain G.
05-24-2007, 10:34 AM
I remember road tax based on 19.5 horsepower in all my parents Champions in Missouri. Can't remember exactly what the state called it, something like road horsepower, or taxable horsepower.

http://home.comcast.net/~jdwain/63.63.jpg
Dwain G.

DilloCrafter
05-24-2007, 04:25 PM
I wonder if the rationale was something like, "higher horsepower cars really tear up the road"!

http://rocketdillo.com/studebaker/misc/images/Avacar-hcsdc.gif[/img=left]DilloCrafter

1955 1/2 Ton Pickup
[i]The Red-Headed Amazon
Deep in the heart of Texas

StudeRich
05-24-2007, 04:27 PM
Well th; (I can call you that for short, right?) :D Just keep in mind that Mark's Studebaker Truck Chassis/Body Parts Catalog only mentions the years it covers.

In other words the 224 was the 1/2 year only, early 1955 car and '55-'56 Truck engine with the very short stroke crank, NOT the 232 engine used from 1951 to 1954.

It DID have a smaller bore and less taxable horsepower. So ALL Studebaker V-8's do not have the same bore, there also is the '64 Jet Thrust & Avanti R3 & R4 with 304.5 cu.in. It is .093 over the 289 bore.


quote:Originally posted by th12t33n

wow something i didnt know. its cool to learn these neat little facts.
Looking to build up my 62 lark daytona 289. any ideas?


StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA