PDA

View Full Version : 188 HP @ rear wheels. Any experts?



Bills R2
06-12-2007, 07:56 PM
A local grinder shop held a Dyno Day last Sat. and I jumped at the chance to give the Stude a whirl!
I was tha only non Honda there and had the kids beat by several years too! The guys really got a kick out of the car! A number of them had even heard of Studebaker...
The first pull was the best @ 188 hp. As the car warmed up,the numbers went down.
Temp was 65,27% humidity. Just about perfect.
The car-Fresh R-2,R-3 headers,stock exhaust. No known mods.Auto W/3.54's
The next pull showed 171 Hp & 181 ft.lbs of torque @ around 5 grand.
The torque curve looked real flat. Air/fuel mixture was real good

My question is...any good? average?[?]

'64 R2 back on da road again
POCI,SCCA,SIMTA

Dick Steinkamp
06-12-2007, 09:29 PM
I'd say it should do much better than that.

The 327 Chev in my '54 is pretty mild. Small valves, no head work, 9.3/1 compression. Mild solid lifter cam. It makes 220 HP and 270 ft lbs of torque on the chassis dyno. I would guess a blown 289 should do AT LEAST that HP and more torque.

I think 41frank was making 220 HP at the rear wheels on his R2 and that was with 5 weak cylinders.

http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

Swifster
06-12-2007, 09:52 PM
That might be about right. Remember the following;

1) The rated 290 HP was gross (no acceesories at the flywheel).

2) The car is an automatic vs Dick's 4-speed (the torque converter will eat up a good portion of the power).

3) Again, compared to the rated power at the flywheel gross, you are getting net HP after all the parasitic losses at the tire.

I think that might be spot on.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Valrico, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/1965_Studebaker_Commander_front198x.jpg

Thomas63R2
06-13-2007, 12:56 AM
I've done hundreds of chassis and engine dyno pulls on my various cars. As a general rule when everything is mechanically correct, I have consistently seen about 20% drop in rear wheel hp vs. flywheel hp with a non lock up torque converter auto trans. With a manual trans or a lock up converter I expect ~ 15% loss in rear wheel hp vs. flywheel hp.

As noted, the old gross hp rating system in use when R2's were made was overly generous in the horsepower rating vs. the real world. So, your results are closer to reality than not. Just run it at the drags and note your mph, not the e.t. Your mph along with your car's actual weight tell the horsepower story. Contemporaneous magazine tests of R2's showed one side or the other of 90 mph trap speed, which computes to a little higher power than your dyno results - but not by much.

All the above is nice, but the better question is where you can find big horsepower improvements. A primary culprit on auto trans cars is poor torque converter efficiency. A good torque converter will show less that 8% rpm loss, the problem is that many do not fare so well. This is super easy to calculate if the right data was tabulated at the chassis dyno. All you need to know is the actual engine rpm vs. the chassis dyno roller speed in mph. Then you compare the actual rpm/speed vs. the theoretical no slip rpm/speed. The math is: (rpm x tire diameter x 2.96) all divided by (differential gear ratio x 1,000) = mph. For example if your theoretical speed was 100 mph for a given engine rpm when your actual roller speed was 80 that would be a 20% loss, which is unacceptable and wasteful of your horsepower. Lots of cars have excessive rpm loss, but still drive just fine for general cruising around. Next up is the carb, you may be surprised that even a correct R2 carb showing good a/f ratio may not be well setup for your particular engine. A non opening secondary air valve will hurt power output.

Thomas

New Stude guy! Long time hot rodder
'63 Avanti R2 4 speed with interesting plans

PlainBrownR2
06-13-2007, 01:32 AM
Oh I wouldnt let the FWD Honda boys scare ya Bill!! ;). If I'm not mistaken, stock 289 was in the 210 HP range and that was a little exaggerated. I'd think it should do considerably better than that, but thats me. From the guys I knew in Yahoo, Dyno Day was also a good day to tune the car to optimal specs. On my R2 I did a number of what is probably routine things to every other R2 owner.
Timing
I advanced mine with the vacuum all the way until it pinged or stumbled then backed it down.
Fuel
Pump is pumping like it should. Carb is in spec. With the carb I had to clean out the secondary vents with a pipe cleaner as they had some sort of dry clay substance down there. It felt like it would run on only two of its four barrels. I checked the linkage was in spec, particularly the injector plunger. The injector plunger was not going all the way down until i readjusted the linkage. I also checked idle controls and rough idle adjustments so everything was in tune. I also made sure the throttle linkage and springs would retract all the way back and return to its original position. This involves changing spring geometry or lighter springs. I should also throw in what octane of gas is being used.
Spark
Plugs are gapped, wires are good, distributor is in spec etc.
Cooling
Heat can be a real killer of horsepower. Radiator, water pump, etc that isnt cooling can sap the engine of it performance.

Yeah, it seems the automatic tranny of this vintage is not one of the most ideal trannies to use. Oh its great for cruising, its built like a brick you know what. Its not the kindest on HP or gas mileage for that matter. Theres alot of little things that can be done to bring the HP rating up that I couldnt list here. Sure, they probably will not come up to buying heads, pipes, so and so forth, but with doing the little things they will eventually add up to better numbers on the dyno. Plus, what alot of guys would do is do a pull, take it off of the dyno, change timing or this or that, and put it back on the dyno and see if it made a difference.



1964 Studebaker Commander R2 clone
1950 Studebaker 2R5 with 170 turbocharged
[img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00003.jpg?t=1171152673[/img=left]
[img=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00009.jpg?t=1171153019[/img=right]
[img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00002.jpg?t=1171153180[/img=left]
[img=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00005.jpg?t=1171153370[/img=right]

Dick Steinkamp
06-13-2007, 10:12 AM
OK, using Thomas' calculation, I'm wrong...

In the June '63 Motor Trend test of an R2 Hawk, test weight was 3,780 pounds and it did the quarter in 16.8 seconds at 85.2 MPH.

Using this calculator...

http://www.1bad69.com/calc.htm

The trap speed in the test would indicate 180.73 HP.

I learned a couple of more things from this thread.

1. Those R2 Studebakers don't put out much HP stock and are relatively slow (I had a 352 2 barrel '63 Ford convertible that would break into the 15's occasionally. I should have raced some of those '63 Super Hawks :D.

2. Ted's wrenching and driving ability in order to get stock supercharged Larks to 13 second (and sub 13 second) ET's is nothing short of AMAZING [:p]. My hero [8D].

http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

Swifster
06-13-2007, 11:56 AM
I had a '71 Fury GT with a 440 4V engine that was rated at 370 HP. After the change to net HP, the rating dropped to 280 HP. Factor in the automatic, 3.23 gears without the sure grip and I'd be lucky if the car would have touched the low 15 second range. Factor in weight, and there are quite a few ricers that would have kicked my tail. But it and my '67 Chrysler 300 sure seemed fast at the time. But then, 14 seconds and high 13 second cars were fast for the times.

Now with technology, 12 second quarter mile times are possible with bolt on parts on Mustangs, GTO's, Firebirds, Camaros, Corvette's, etc. And they still may get 25 MPG. Times change.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Valrico, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/1965_Studebaker_Commander_front198x.jpg

PackardV8
06-13-2007, 01:40 PM
Greetings, Bill's R2,

Those of us old enough to have been there will remember the reason the NHRA factored the R2/3 cars out of contention. Supercharged cars respond to tuning and increasing the blower pressure with much more horsepower than do normally aspirated cars. The big three didn't want sick Studebaker showing them up at the Nationals.

Guarantee, Ted Harbit can take your R2 and with a bit of time and money, have it turning 13s at over 100 mph, even with the automatic. It is all a matter of attention to detail and knowing how. It would then probably show 288 rwhp instead of the 188 you were seeing.

Secondly, the Borg Warner Powershift is as strong and efficient an automatic as one could buy in 1964. Corvette still had the Powerglide. The Powershift is not the problem. Throw $2000 at a TH350 or 700R4 and you are still going to see slippage on a chassis dyno. (Don't even think of trying to run a 700R4 in lock-up on a chassis dyno.)

thnx, jv.

PackardV8

JDP
06-13-2007, 02:16 PM
From the Studebaker news group archive dyno tests at the Pure stock drags:

"The R3 really strained at the Plain Brown Wrapper's tethers [to the
dyno] and produced 365.1 HP MEASURED AT THE REAR WHEELS with a fully
"loaded" drive train at 5830 RPM! "



JDP/Maryland

64 Daytona HT/R2 clone
63 GT R2
63 Lark 2 door
62 Lark 2 door
60 Lark HT-60Hawk
59 3E truck
58 Starlight
52 & 53 Starliner
51 Commander

JDP
06-13-2007, 02:23 PM
The 16 second plus ET in that test should be ignored based on the R2's potential. If Ted can get his R2 Tomato into the high 12's at 100 MPH, he could get a GT down to maybe 13.30. I'm no Ted Harbit, but I was running in the 14's with a R2 Hawk and even 15.40's in a supercharged Silver Hawk with a 2 barrel back in the day. Neither car was race prepped, just running correctly.

JDP/Maryland

64 Daytona HT/R2 clone
63 GT R2
63 Lark 2 door
62 Lark 2 door
60 Lark HT-60Hawk
59 3E truck
58 Starlight
52 & 53 Starliner
51 Commander

JDP
06-13-2007, 02:38 PM
BTW, I agree with Dick, your rear wheel HP does seem a bit low. Based on the beat case (Ted's R2) you should be around 270HP at the rear wheels, real world, certainly 225 HP or so.

JDP/Maryland

64 Daytona HT/R2 clone
63 GT R2
63 Lark 2 door
62 Lark 2 door
60 Lark HT-60Hawk
59 3E truck
58 Starlight
52 & 53 Starliner
51 Commander

Mike Van Veghten
06-13-2007, 03:13 PM
Also one thing to concider....

Every dyno is "not" calibrated the same.
So there's also a small spot for inconsistancies too.

I'd say you are pretty close though...for what it's worth.
Did you have the chance to try jetting or timing changes? As others have noted, that "could" be worth as much as another 10 hp.

Mike

Bills R2
06-13-2007, 11:35 PM
You guys are TOO awsome! Lots of good thoughts,for sure.
The dwell is dead nuts. I did not check the timing but it has to be very close. The carb is clean & opening fully. Some of you say I am in the ball park and some say I am down about a hundred horsies...
Going by the '63 drag results (which I thought were slow) I should be pretty close. I am going to pick up intake gaskets in S.Bend and block the heat cross-over. I would also like to find a 170 thermostat,I am currently running a 180.
Let's keep this tread rolling!

'64 R2 back on da road again
POCI,SCCA,SIMTA

Thomas63R2
06-14-2007, 01:22 AM
Bill, in what manner was the air/fuel ratio guaged? With a gas analyzer or did you have an O2 bung welded in near the exhaust manifold for use with a wide band sensor? The O2 bung with a wide band sensor is the most accurate way.

Your engine is nothing more than an air pump that requires fuel and spark for the pumping action. More air going in, with matched airflow out = power.

Before you go too far you should check for excessively dragging rear brakes or excessive trans slippage (all non lock up automatics slip, you just want as little as possible). It would also be good to do both a simple compression test AND a cylinder leakdown test. If you are going to build more power you need to know that there is a good foundation that you can build on.

Next up is the regular tune up items: fresh plugs and wires, good belts and clean blower fluid - don't forget the air filter.

You should also check out all the sealing points: blower hoses, carb hat, carb base gasket and intake manifold gasket. Take off your valve covers and first visually check your valvetrain. This would be a good time to check your open and closed valve spring pressures weak springs bounce too much and "burp" cylinder pressure which costs horsepower.

Modern gasoline is nothing like what was available 40+ years ago - you may find that trying a different advance curve would be helpful.

The list goes on and on - any performance tuning handbook for a carb'd V8 should be full of ideas.

Given that the old SAE horsepower ratings were derived from non realistic engine setups that ignored things like a cooling fan or sometime even an engine driven water pump, I still say you are doing fine. The dyno standards for correcting and rating horsepower have gone through two major revisions since the Avanti's birth. under today's stricter standards a real stock R2 should only show ~ 240 flywheel horsepower and 192 rear wheel horsepower automatic, 204 rwhp for the 4 speed stick. I would expect more out of yours based on the performance upgrades, it would all depend on how your performance upgrades improved bottlenecks to airflow in and out.

Thomas

New Stude guy! Long time hot rodder
'63 Avanti R2 4 speed with interesting plans

bige
06-14-2007, 10:59 AM
Figuring my car at 3650lb's race weight horsepower came in at 219 RWP and 258 flywheel based on a 91.56 MPH. I leaned the secondaries a little and my butt dyno tells me the car is a little quicker now so when I go back to the dragstrip in the fall I hope to see a couple more mph and a tenth or two.
ErnieR

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r241/AvantiR2/track.jpg

Thomas63R2
06-15-2007, 12:44 AM
Ernie, for sure you will break into the 14's next time out. What, besides the 700R4 transmission, have you done - and what stall converter are you using?

Thomas

New Stude guy! Long time hot rodder
'63 Avanti R2 4 speed with interesting plans

laughinlark
06-15-2007, 01:03 AM
Hey everybody,
Ok you have my attention about horse power rating at the rear wheels. I have a 63 Lark 2Dr Deluxe that I have never weighed. It was a six cyl car OE. It now has a V/8, flightomatic, with a 3:31 dana 44 rear and OE front disc brakes. My best time with a 1/4 tank of 91 octane gas was 15.07 @ 89 mph. How much HP does that work out too?

Gordon

laughinlark
06-15-2007, 01:05 AM
Hey everybody,
Ok you have my attention about horse power rating at the rear wheels. I have a 63 Lark 2Dr Deluxe that I have never weighed. It was a six cyl car OE. It now has a V/8, flightomatic, with a 3:31 dana 44 rear and OE front disc brakes. My best time with a 1/4 tank of 91 octane gas was 15.07 @ 89 mph. How much HP does that work out too?

Gordon

laughinlark
06-15-2007, 01:14 AM
Sorry for the double post. I messed that one up.

Gordon

bige
06-15-2007, 07:30 AM
Thomas,

The carb is a combination of an Edelbrock 1406 bottom and the original R2 3725S AFB top. The engine was bored by the previous owner to a whopping .156 over giving me about 315CID. The heads are low compression ( I'm guessing with the dished pistons that are in there about 8.25:1) with R3 Intake valves, the cam is an R2.5 with matching springs, the exhaust is R3 manifolds with a 2" "H" configuration running through Thrush Turbo mufflers, gearing is 3.73 TT, torque converter is a B&M Holeshot lock up with a 2400 RPM stall, blower is stock with a smaller pulley, the distributor is a Delco window that I curved to give me 28 total at 2,000 rpm( centrifugal advance ), Pertronix Ignitor, Jets are 98 front with 73/47 rods and 95 rear ( stock 1406 set up but I have since leaned the secondaries to 92 jets and my seat of the pants dyno says the car is now quicker in the midrange ).

I plan to go back in the fall sometime after I put the flanged axles in. My launch technique was from idle easing the car off the line a little to avoid stressing the stock axles too much. I feel with the Jet changes and being able to come off a little harder the car will break into the 14's. The runs were made with the spare in the trunk and 3 year old spark plugs.

One other issue that may have slowed me down a little is the governor in the 700R4. I have yet to come up with the right combination of springs and weights to get the full throttle shift points where I would like them so at the top of first gear I have to let off the gas a little and allow the trans to shift otherwise it will go right to 6,000 RPM and power starts to drop after 5,500.

Ernie R2 R5388

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r241/AvantiR2/track.jpg

41 Frank
06-15-2007, 09:30 AM
Need your car weight before we can give you a horsepower figure Gordon



quote:Originally posted by laughinlark

Hey everybody,
Ok you have my attention about horse power rating at the rear wheels. I have a 63 Lark 2Dr Deluxe that I have never weighed. It was a six cyl car OE. It now has a V/8, flightomatic, with a 3:31 dana 44 rear and OE front disc brakes. My best time with a 1/4 tank of 91 octane gas was 15.07 @ 89 mph. How much HP does that work out too?

Gordon

laughinlark
06-15-2007, 02:36 PM
Ok guys

I just got back from the local truck stop weighing my 63 Lark. The Lark weighed in @ 3,160 lbs. :D I weigh in @ 180 lbs. [:0] Thats a total of 3,340 lbs. ET of 15.07 @ 89 mph. So how much rear wheel HP is that [?]
There is probably more power to be found with some fine tuning but I bracket race and drive it daily. So I've always done my tuning at home and never touch a thing at the track.
Thanks,
Gordon

41 Frank
06-15-2007, 06:25 PM
Gordon the calculator says 182 HP at rear wheels

Thomas63R2
06-15-2007, 11:58 PM
Ernie, that sounds like a good combination. I'm sure you had posted it before, I just couldn't remember. Did you ever run it on the chassis dyno? If you did, how were the a/f ratios? Or maybe get an LM1 installed and do your tuning at the track. Given your tepid takeoff technique, there is plenty of e.t. improvement potential. On a car like yours with a currently soft launch, a tenth off the 60' can easily net two tenths in the 1/4 mile. As setup, the Avanti chassis and suspension does not lend itself to dragstrip launches. It may be more effort than you would consider, but unbolting the front sway off the a-arms could be helpful in weight transfer.

What common piston is 3.716" with an appropriate wrist pin location? Were your cylinder bores really that well centered and thick? Sonic check?

Thomas

New Stude guy! Long time hot rodder
'63 Avanti R2 4 speed with interesting plans