PDA

View Full Version : "Let Fly" to Hot Rod; Jim Pepper in Post #62



BobPalma
02-09-2012, 10:04 PM
RE: The Studebaker V8 versus the April 2012 Hot Rod magazine domestic V8 article.

Below sent to Editor David Freiburger this evening:

http://racingstudebakers.com/foo/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2496 (http://racingstudebakers.com/foo/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2496)

Update: Some people had trouble with the link, so the whole letter is below in Post #13. BP

Roscomacaw
02-09-2012, 10:13 PM
You're gonna have them checking their backsides for boot prints. LOL!

Da Tinman
02-09-2012, 10:17 PM
Well put Dude, much better the f-bomb loaded reply I would have given anyway.

SN-60
02-09-2012, 10:20 PM
Bob 'F Lee Bailey' Palma!!

BobPalma
02-09-2012, 10:21 PM
You're gonna have them checking their backsides for boot prints. LOL!

I hope so, Bob, 'cause they're gonna find some big ones! <GGG> BP

silverhawk
02-09-2012, 10:55 PM
Well said Mr.Palma! I sure hope to see more coverage from them in the future, with a reply like that, I can't see why not! :)

Chris Pile
02-09-2012, 11:17 PM
Well said, Bob - but I think the problem is that Studebaker hasn't bought any advertising in Hot Rod for a long, long, time!

candbstudebakers
02-10-2012, 12:30 AM
Thanks Bob, I don't spend money on these rags they call magazines, they quit printing any thing worth reading long ago.

Studeboro
02-10-2012, 01:12 AM
thanks Bob, aside from reading your responce, and learning alot, I love knowing of a good but whooping, and I'm real glad your on our side.

davepink53
02-10-2012, 01:23 AM
Gee Bob, I would love to know what was written, but I have been denied reading the post??

Son O Lark
02-10-2012, 05:03 AM
Gee Bob, I would love to know what was written, but I have been denied reading the post??

Same here, something about me being a spammer?

JRoberts
02-10-2012, 07:01 AM
Very well put, Bob. Thanks for carrying the Studebaker banner so proudly. I just got my latest issue of Hot Rod yesterday and was very disappointed. It seems like every possilbe form of GM V8 was in their Top 20. All this said, sadly I really was not surprised at the results.

BobPalma
02-10-2012, 07:19 AM
Thanks, Guys.

Davepink and Barry (Son-o-Lark): PM sent with the entire letter. (Barry: 'Good to see your Dad, Dale "Lark Parker" McPhearson, doing so well of late. Great News! BP)

Oh, phooey; so no one else has trouble with the link, I'll just go ahead and paste the whole thing here:


OK, David Freiburger,

You guys have got my dander up this time! I enjoy Hot Rod and everything you've done with it the last several years, but there's no excuse for completely ignoring the bullet-proof Studebaker V8 engine in your April 2012 domestic V8 engine history and survey.

Do I understand that the survey was conducted on Facebook? What's up with that...and with only 2,000 people responding? That's got to be an infinitesimally-small percentage of your readership. What about people who aren't on Facebook; the ones who just read the magazine when it comes in the mail or buy it on the newsstand? How were they to express their opinion?

If the survey was confined to Facebook participants, I can appreciate their probably youthful ignorance of, and subsequent disregard for, the 1951-1964 Studebaker V8 engine. That accounts for them.

But your editors, your internal "staff survey" reported on Page 65? Give me a break! If they are real car guys, they should at least be aware of the Studebaker V8 and mention it somewhere, for Pete's sake. Have any of them seen a Studebaker V8 lately? Worked on one? Considered its uniqueness and many strengths?

Let me outline a few features of this unique, remarkable, and underappreciated engine. You decide in which category each belongs:

1. Sturdy? Every Studebaker V8 of every displacement (224 / 232 / 259 / 289 / 304.5) has a forged crankshaft and forged connecting rods, standard.

2. Sturdy? The original 1951 Studebaker V8 of 232 cubic inches has more combined main and rod bearing area than either the 1949 Oldsmobile or 1949 Cadillac V8, despite those engines having 303 and 331 cubic inches, respectively. The Studebaker V8's lower end is so overbuilt that bottom end problems on Studebaker V8s are 'way below the industry average.

3. Sturdy? Each cylinder head on a Studebaker V8 is secured with 18 bolts, effectively placing six bolts around each cylinder. Head gasket failure is all but unheard of, even on the many factory supercharged (and warranted, mind you) engines built in model years 1957, 1958, 1963, and 1964.

4. Sturdy? Every Studebaker V8 has full rocker arm shafts noted for long life; no flimsy stamped, individual rocker arms and pressed-in rocker arm studs to pull out no matter how cute and avant-garde (and cheap) the engineering.

5. Easy to work on? The Studebaker V8 water pump is small enough to hold in the palm of your hand and held to the water pump manifold with 4 small bolts. It's got to be the easiest one in the industry to replace; you don't even remove either end of either radiator hose.

6. Easy to work on? There is no need to open the cooling system to replace the intake manifold on a Studebaker V8; there are no cooling system passages within any intake manifold of a Studebaker V8 engine.

7. Easy to work on? The spark plugs in the most crowded 1957/1958 supercharged Golden Hawk engine with power steering and air conditioning, while no picnic with all those options, are still easier to access than the nearly-invisible, finger-searing 'plugs below the hot exhaust manifolds on most configurations of small-block Chevy V8s and Y-block Fords.

8. Longevity due to simplicity? Every Studebaker V8 has solid valve lifters, easily adjustable with self-locking adjustment screws on the inner ends of the rocker arms. No need to fool around with separate lock nuts once the valves are adjusted, and no need to worry about problems associated with hydraulic lifter pump-up or clatter.

9. Low-Maintenance Longevity? No need to worry about timing chain stretch and sprocket wear or ease / frequency of replacement in a Studebaker V8; every Studebaker V8 engine has a gear-driven camshaft.

10. Powerful in Original Form? Only the Chrysler hemi-head V8 had more power per cubic inch in model year 1951, the year Studebaker's V8 was introduced. Even with each of them having had two years' development as production engines, neither the Cadillac nor Oldsmobile V8 could muster one-half horsepower per cubic inch by 1951. The Studebaker V8 jumped out of the box with .517 in base configuration, second only to the original Chrysler Hemi's .543 among all 1951 domestic V8s.

11. Powerful in Final Form? A portable dynamometer was on location at The Summer 2004 Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Race in Stanton MI. A legally-stock Studebaker R3 engine in a 1964 Studebaker Challenger 2-door sedan recorded 365 HP @ 5,895 RPM measured at the rear wheels with full, street-legal exhaust, stock air cleaner, and all engine accessories in place and operating...from its bone-stock 304.5 cubic inch displacement! That's almost 1.20 HP/CI as installed in the chassis, street-legal. How many other domestic 1964 V8s from any manufacturer could make that claim?

Putting the power to the ground and down the drag strip proved that the 365 HP figure was no fluke, either: At the 2011 Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Race, that same car turned a quarter-mile elapsed time of 12.664 seconds at over 114 mph in the same configuration...on street-legal, DOT-approved G70X15 tires.

12. Appearance? Who on your staff has recently eyeballed a genuine, factory-supercharged Studebaker V8 and marveled at how mechanical and muscular it looks? While this is a matter of personal opinion, go to a car show where someone has a factory-supercharged Lark or Hawk with the hood open. Note how many people stop for a long look and leave with their eyebrows raised, a smile on their face, and new-found respect for a factory-supercharged muscle car that was available and being sold a full model year before Pontiac's 1964 GTO-packaged LeMans. 'Nuff said.

Yet, despite "all the above," the word Studebaker never appears in Hot Rod's April 2012 "coverage" of Great American V8 engines.

I suppose that's why the word ridiculous is in the dictionary.

Sincerely,

Bob Palma
Technical Editor
The Studebaker Drivers Club
Turning Wheels monthly magazine.

Starlight
02-10-2012, 07:43 AM
RE: The Studebaker V8 versus the April 2012 Hot Rod magazine domestic V8 article.

Below sent to Editor David Freiburger this evening:

http://racingstudebakers.com/foo/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2496 (http://racingstudebakers.com/foo/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2496)


Loved your letter to them, Bob,I too was doing a slow burn over that article in Hot Rod.....Glad you blistered them, now, what will the reply/response from them be.....We shall see.....Keep on Studebakering

Bud
02-10-2012, 07:44 AM
I 'll see the guys from Hot Rod magazine today as they are setting up an exhibit at the Automobile Driving Museum and they come over for lunch every Friday for a meeting. I'll tell them firsthand about not including the Studebaker V8 in their 20 best engines list and how we feel about the exclusion. Bud

53k
02-10-2012, 07:52 AM
Thanks, Guys.

Davepink and Barry (Son-o-Lark): PM sent with the entire letter. (Barry: 'Good to see your Dad, Dale "Lark Parker" McPhearson, doing so well of late. Great News! BP)

[I][COLOR=red]Oh, phooey; so no one else has trouble with the link, I'll just go ahead and paste the whole thing here:...
Beautifully said. Only thing I would have added would have been to talk more about Studebaker successes at the PSMCD, especially those in competition with some of the much larger displacement "significant" V-8s.

BobPalma
02-10-2012, 07:56 AM
I 'll see the guys from Hot Rod magazine today as they are setting up an exhibit at the Automobile Driving Museum and they come over for lunch every Friday for a meeting. I'll tell them firsthand about not including the Studebaker V8 in their 20 best engines list and how we feel about the exclusion. Bud

Excellent, Bud; thanks. BP

studebaker-R2-4-me
02-10-2012, 08:01 AM
Well said Bob, you have a way with words.

Allen

Bob Andrews
02-10-2012, 08:15 AM
Before we get too angry at Hot Rod, let's consider what I posted in Bob's first thread on this:

http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?59017-Stude-V8-amp-April-2012-Hot-Rod-UGH!

Son O Lark
02-10-2012, 08:23 AM
Awesome! Thanks, Bob!!

8E45E
02-10-2012, 08:27 AM
They were obvoiusly too lazy to look in their archives and re-read the January, 1964 issue of Hot Rod, which reported VERY favorably on the R3 and the R5 'Due-Cento'.

Craig

BobPalma
02-10-2012, 08:30 AM
They were obvoiusly too lazy to look in their archives and re-read the January, 1964 issue of Hot Rod, which reported VERY favorably on the R3. Craig

Excellent point, Craig.

I'll be mindful of that in what I am sure will be some follow-up on this.

Thanks for the reminder, since I have two copies of that issue here! Bob

studebaker-R2-4-me
02-10-2012, 03:18 PM
They were obvoiusly too lazy to look in their archives and re-read the January, 1964 issue of Hot Rod, which reported VERY favorably on the R3 and the R5 'Due-Cento'.

Craig

I recently bought this Hotrod Magazine on Ebay for .99 cents thanks to Bob Andrew's heads up on that particular issue. It is one really good read and well worth trying to buy one.


Allen

davepink53
02-10-2012, 03:34 PM
Thanks for the PM Bob. Well done!

Bud
02-10-2012, 04:15 PM
The word is out to the guys at Hot Rod that we're not happy about excluding Studebakers in their best engines list. This isn't going over well with us as 3 of the five people from the museum involved in their exhibit are Studebaker owners including the museum director who has a nice 50 Champion Starlight coupe. Bud

avantilover
02-10-2012, 04:52 PM
Perhaps it's typical of the modified car industry. The most common engine mentioned is the SBC, lots of those folks wouldn't have any idea of what Studebaker (dead for 46 years) could do. Considering the Studebaker V8 has been dead for 48 years. Now, we can't be too cross about the SBC - after all we were powered by Canadian Mackinnon engines of this type for the last 2 years of production.

As I said to Tom Curtis in a recent email - I feel we need more Studebakers in the Hot Rod and modified car classes/hobbies even without a Studebaker engine if that's what the owner/builder wants - there are just too few cars there - no offense intended to GM Ford and Chrysler and those who love those marques as much as we love ours.

Perhaps to stir the pot a bit, I queried his comment re: every chapter president received a banner and the 3 publications we put out - that should have been US/Canadian chapters as the rest of us know nothing of this, nor I suspect of the 3 publications (TW excepted).

Frieberger is probably under pressure as Rob Kinnan was sacked - he (Frieberger) has contributed many articles to recent issues, must be fun in the magazine biz today.

Bob Andrews
02-10-2012, 05:54 PM
They were obvoiusly too lazy to look in their archives and re-read the January, 1964 issue of Hot Rod, which reported VERY favorably on the R3 and the R5 'Due-Cento'.

Craig

I think this dovetails with the point I'm making.

That article was 48 years ago. I'm betting anyone that was on staff at HR back then has long since retired and maybe passed on. I wonder who there currently has the longest tenure, and what is it- maybe 20 years if that?

I have a theory I call the Sphere of Experience. That means that while we all appreciate history and the past of areas that interest us, there's a point where we transition between active interest to passive interest; that coincides with our own life experience. For example, I grew up knowing cars from the late 50s-up. I love the cars previous to that and respect them, but my interest is much less, based on lesser knowledge and lack of memories from my younger days of these cars. Consequently, I am naturally much more drawn to the cars I've known.

So if my theory is accurate, chances are few or none of the current HR staff's Sphere of Experience reaches anywhere near the 60s. I'm sure they have respect for older history, but magazine sales are about what the readers want; and I'm betting that's not little-known engines. They did this on Facebook, where the demographic is even younger. So, it's no surprise to me that the Studebaker was not disrespected, it was completely unknown. I went to their Facebook page and read the threads about the poll; in a couple hundred comments there was no mention of the Stude; but there were a number of comments made by guys admitting they had little experience (read: youth) with much variety. (If anyone wants to see for themselves, go to Facebook and Hot Rod Mag, and look between December 19 and 21.) I haven't read the article, but they should have mentioned it was a small social media sampling, and therefore not that definitive. I wonder if they're trying to say that this list is really the Top 20, or merely what Facebook said is the Top 20? That can easily be two completely different lists.

I agree with everything BP wrote in the letter. But it is my opinion that this was simply an imperfect sampling experiment. It will be interesting to see their response, if any. Hopefully they will clarify; I doubt they will disagree.

Correction is important in this situation, and I applaud BP for writing. We just have to realize, there's a fine line between delivering needed correction, and coming off like a curmudgeonly old bunch of crabs. We've already got to live down CASO:)

Dick Steinkamp
02-10-2012, 06:46 PM
HRM is the wrong magazine to expect the readership to acknowledge the Studebaker V8. My guess is no matter how big the sample size, the percentage of the readership that knows a Studebaker V8 exists, let alone would rate it highly is mighty low. It's like expecting the readership of Wired to rate phone booths as one of the most important tech advances.

There would be a much better chance of the readership of Hot Rod Deluxe to know and like Stude power. David Freiburger is also the editor of that mag.

DEEPNHOCK
02-10-2012, 07:25 PM
I came home this afternoon and there were two car magazines in my 'in' pile.
Having read this thread, I went through this month's Hot Rod articles looking at the content.
Seems that the current editors are interested in nostalgia, faux nostalgia, or over the top newstalgia.
Best article was about Dutweiler's SBC pulling 2,077 HP in Poteet's streamliner..... Whoaa.....:eek:
The rest of the mag was pretty much a snooze.
The other car mag, Street Rodder, is a gem...
Just an opinion mind you...
Jeff:cool:

starliner62
02-10-2012, 08:17 PM
Bob, Old Freiburger is gonna come down and whomp you on your head!!!!:p Is whomp a word?? Good job, Bob!!

sbca96
02-10-2012, 08:22 PM
I canceled my subscription to Hot Rod when they featured a Honda years ago.
I used to have Car Craft and Popular Hot Rodding, but I let those lapse too. It
has turned to almost all ads now. In other words, if your car doesnt have a
few sponsor/advertisers parts on it, you WONT get in those magazines. You
will notice each article will have at least 5 call outs for parts makers.

Since almost no aftermarket NAME brands make Studebaker parts, you will
be hard pressed to get a Studebaker included.

If my Avanti had a full length Flowmaster exhaust, a Flaming River steering
box, Edelbrock performance heads, MSD distributor, Brembo disc brake kit,
Strange axle, Koni shocks, and VDO gauges .... I might have a shot .... ;)

Tom

9echo
02-10-2012, 10:27 PM
Bob, don't hold back, tell them what you really think.
Well done.

mbstude
02-10-2012, 10:36 PM
It must be a loooong winter in Brownsburg.

BobPalma
02-10-2012, 11:21 PM
Obviously, I agree with theories about Facebook, younger people, and such. In fact, I covered that up front in my letter: bold face added for emphasis, here, for those who were speed-reading too fast and missed it:

Do I understand that the survey was conducted on Facebook? What's up with that...and with only 2,000 people responding? That's got to be an infinitesimally-small percentage of your readership. What about people who aren't on Facebook; the ones who just read the magazine when it comes in the mail or buy it on the newsstand? How were they to express their opinion?

If the survey was confined to Facebook participants, I can appreciate their probably youthful ignorance of, and subsequent disregard for, the 1951-1964 Studebaker V8 engine. That accounts for them.

The core of my "issue" with Hot Rod, that among their editors and writers they should know better, was addressed in the paragraph following my having accounted for Facebook-based participants:

But your editors, your internal "staff survey" reported on Page 65? Give me a break! If they are real car guys, they should at least be aware of the Studebaker V8 and mention it somewhere, for Pete's sake. Have any of them seen a Studebaker V8 lately? Worked on one? Considered its uniqueness and many strengths?

So here's the real issue: Their own "internal" survey on Page 65, or their introductory remarks on Page 52, gave them ample opportunity to address a lesser-known engine like the Studebaker V8 and in my never-so-humble opinion, if they were truly well-rounded hot-rodders, they would have done just that!

That's not to say they needed to insert the Studebaker V8 into the poll if it didn't receive enough votes, but Pages 52 and 65 addressed non-poll engines...and that's where the Studebaker V8 could and should have been mentioned, even if just a sentence or two.

Now, to address remarks that the Studebaker V8 was simply "too old" to have many younger people be aware of it. The observation can be rightly made that the following engines that did make the poll, are no younger than the Studebaker V8. The poll reported the Top 20 engines in order of popularity, so I put their poll numbers here. (I know many are yet to receive -or may never read- the April 2012 Hot Rod:)

#18, 1949-1964 Oldsmobile Rocket of 303, 324, 371, and 394 cubic inches.

#17, 1953-1966 Buick "Nailhead" of 264, 322, 364, 401, and 425 cubic inches.

#10, 1932-1953 Ford Flathead of 221, 239, and 255 cubic inches.

#6, 1958-1965 "W" Series Chevrolet of 348, 409, and 427 cubic inches.

Those four engines are more famous than the Studebaker V8 due to their parent companies, and were produced in far greater numbers than the Studebaker V8. The last two years of the Nailhead Buick and the last half-month of the Chevrolet "W" engine excepted, the Olds and Ford engines were out of production with or before the Studebaker V8.

(As regards the Nailhead Buick, it was being phased out beginning in 1964 -earlier, if you want to include the aluminum 1961 and up 215 V8- and was not Buick's exclusive V8 in 1964-1966. Similarily, the "W" Chevrolet V8 was only produced for roughly the first half of the 1965 model year, going out of production within a year of the Studebaker V8's almost parallel demise.)

So age alone does not account for the Studebaker V8 being overlooked in the poll. Ignorance of it does, of course. So if Hot Rod's readers are to be less ignorant (think about it) when they are done reading a given issue, it is incumbent upon the magazine's writers and editors to give people information they may not know.

I am reminded of Hemmings Classic Car Editor-in-Chief Richard Lentinello's "instructions" when he approached me to write the quarterly column for the magazine. I printed a copy of his invitation, dated 3/31/2011, and have referred to it several times when thinking of topics.

Here's a salient excerpt from his e-mail:"The column's content can be about anything you so choose, just so long as the focus remains on American collector cars. We're interested in insightful thoughts about particular brands and models, automobile production, marketing, style and design, performance, or what Detroit should have built. I'm trying to engage our readers more." (bold face mine.)

It seems like that "mission statement" is to make sure the magazine's readers learn something, i.e, put the magazine down knowing more than they did before they picked it up. I believe Hot Rod failed to do that by ignoring reader ignorance of the Studebaker V8 reflected by their poll.

They had a chance to help their readers learn something in the course of accurately reporting the poll results, even if only a sentence or two about the Studebaker V8, and dropped the ball. (And for the record, they did not mention the 1955-1956 Packard V8 either; not one word.) BP

Bob Andrews
02-11-2012, 05:12 AM
That's not to say they needed to insert the Studebaker V8 into the poll if it didn't receive enough votes, but Pages 52 and 65 addressed non-poll engines...and that's where the Studebaker V8 could and should have been mentioned, even if just a sentence or two.

Not having read the magazine, I did not know this part, and I agree- that was their provision to give some 'honorable mention', and they should have done so.




Now, to address remarks that the Studebaker V8 was simply "too old" to have many younger people be aware of it. The observation can be rightly made that the following engines that did make the poll, are no younger than the Studebaker V8. The poll reported the Top 20 engines in order of popularity, so I put their poll numbers here. (I know many are yet to receive -or may never read- the April 2012 Hot Rod:)

#18, 1949-1964 Oldsmobile Rocket of 303, 324, 371, and 394 cubic inches.

#17, 1953-1966 Buick "Nailhead" of 264, 322, 364, 401, and 425 cubic inches.

#10, 1932-1953 Ford Flathead V8 of 221, 239, and 255 cubic inches.

Those three engines are more famous than the Studebaker V8 due to their parent companies, and were produced in far greater numbers than the Studebaker V8. The last two years of the Nailhead Buick excepted, the other two were out of production with or before the Studebaker V8. (And as regards the Nailhead Buick, it was being phased out beginning in 1964 -earlier, if you want to include the aluminum 1961 and up 215 V8- and was not Buick's exclusive V8 in 1964-1966.)

So age alone does not account for the Studebaker V8 being overlooked in the poll. Ignorance of it does, of course.

Agreed. But, I go back to wondering about the ages of not only the poll participants, but those in charge at HR. They probably came up in the hot rod world hearing of the active use of the above-mentioned engines. Outside of our small world, how many have been actively using Studebakers in hot rods? And therein lies the problem. I wonder how many other letters like yours they will receive, as opposed to that number had they left out mention of, say, the Rocket or Nailhead?

Hopefully, your efforts will cause more recognition for Studebakers. If they are true to their stated/inferred mission, it will. Good discussion!

stude dude
02-11-2012, 06:26 AM
Bob, your letter is possibly the most perfect one ever written. With your permission, I would very much like to include it in the next issue of "Stude News', the Australian club newsletter. There are too many ignorant young lads down here dropping in Chev motors without realising what they have done. They need to be educated!

Chris.

TDITS
02-11-2012, 08:40 AM
Ok now i feel like I need to get a Stude V8....

BobPalma
02-11-2012, 09:05 AM
Bob, your letter is possibly the most perfect one ever written. With your permission, I would very much like to include it in the next issue of "Stude News', the Australian club newsletter. There are too many ignorant young lads down here dropping in Chev motors without realising what they have done. They need to be educated! Chris.

Thanks, Chris; much appreciated.

Sure, place it in your Aussie Club Newsletter if you like; nothing here is copyrighted as far as I know. Certainly not my material, and this is not printed in Turning Wheels.

Which brings up an interesting question: Was the Studebaker V8 offered in Australian-built and marketed Studebakers for all the 1951-1964 model years?

IIRC, it seems like an unusually-large percentage of Australian Studes were V8s, even higher than in the 'states. True? BP

fpstude
02-11-2012, 10:10 AM
Bob, this Studebaker engine feature article is now in my Studebaker folder on the PC and also a copy in the binder of information carried in the car at all times.

cruiser
02-11-2012, 10:59 AM
Attention : BOB PALMA .

You ask about whether the Studebaker V8 was available in Australia from 1951 thru 1964 .

Back in the early Fifties , most Studebaker's imported were Champions , but there were

always a few Commanders and Land Cruisers that made their way out here . Then by 1955

there was an increase in Commanders and some Presidents that made it here , not as much

emphasis on the Champions . For 1956 , more Commanders and then 1957 and 1958 mostly

Commanders and Presidents . For 1959 through 1964 nearly all Larks were V8's except

for two or three 6's brought in for evaluation only . All the Hawks 1956 to 1964 were V8's .

Our last cars , the 1965's were all McKinnon V8's . So to finalise , pre 1956 , probably as

many 6's as V8's , Post 1956 , hardly any 6's , we were happy that we mostly got the V8's .

The critique that you replied to Hot Rod with , should make them question their choices .

CRUISER

BobPalma
02-11-2012, 03:02 PM
Thanks, Cruiser (Bruce).

I had understood the V8s were much more popular (as percent of total Studebaker sales) in later years, but did not know when the mix went from heavily sixes to heavily V8s.

Interesting.

Any theories as to why the dramatic shift? (That's a serious question; I have no theories to offer!) BP

BobPalma
02-11-2012, 03:04 PM
Bob, this Studebaker engine feature article is now in my Studebaker folder on the PC and also a copy in the binder of information carried in the car at all times.

'Glad to help, Perry.

Now we need a similar comparison, item by item, with a 1963 289 Ford V8 to hand out at the same time and settle that once and for all! <GGG> BP

avantilover
02-11-2012, 03:24 PM
Perhaps an article on the Studebaker V8 would be good, he may suggest it and be willing to publish one. I agree with Chris about placing the piece in our Aussie (Victorian really) magazine, however information would be better placed in the Australian Muscle Car Magazine and Street Machine, where it would gain more readers.

The biggest difficulty in my opinion is there doesn't appear to be any way to hot up our engines to the extent folks do with GM,Ford and Chrysler units as they seem to want 600 or more horsepower.

At least getting the message that Studebakers are fun and different and cheap to purchase would be a good thing.

Another issue in general is that there is now a national ban on learner drivers driving V8s until age 25 which doesn't help, still the older folks may like to do up a Studebaker as something different.

cruiser
02-11-2012, 03:45 PM
Hi again BP ,

The reason for the shift to predominantly V8 powerplants had a lot to do with
end pricing once our Government had levied import duty . The price difference
between a Champion and a Commander came closer , percentage wise , as
the levy didn't penalise the V8 at a higher rate than that imposed on the Six .

Then there was competition in the marketplace as Ford was heavily promoting
their V8 in the mid Fifties , and so Studebaker moved more upmarket with a
V8 to compete . In Australia , the Studebaker was looked on as an upmarket
car so the increase in power kept it ahead of most of the competition . It did
cause some weird things to happen . For example , in 1958 the Packard two
door hardtop was the third most expensive car on the market here . No wonder
they only sold six of them . Then from 1960 onwards with Ford promoting its
Falcon heavily , Studebaker had the V8 for the Lark which helped differentiate it.

CRUISER

studegary
02-11-2012, 03:48 PM
A comment relative to your item number 5 - Chrysler Corp. "B" block engines (361, 383, 400, 440) all use a water pump similar to a Studebaker V8 water pump. It is also a four bolt impeller, bearing & mount set up that doesn't require water manifold removal.

BobPalma
02-11-2012, 03:57 PM
A comment relative to your item number 5 - Chrysler Corp. "B" block engines (361, 383, 400, 440) all use a water pump similar to a Studebaker V8 water pump. It is also a four bolt impeller, bearing & mount set up that doesn't require water manifold removal.

Correct, Gary.

Depending on equipment, the B-block MoPar can be as easy as a Studebaker V8's water pump to replace. No easier, but just as easy.

(I think you meant 4-bolt housing, right?) <GGG> BP

BobPalma
02-11-2012, 03:59 PM
Hi again BP ,

The reason for the shift to predominantly V8 powerplants had a lot to do with
end pricing once our Government had levied import duty . The price difference
between a Champion and a Commander came closer , percentage wise , as
the levy didn't penalise the V8 at a higher rate than that imposed on the Six .

Then there was competition in the marketplace as Ford was heavily promoting
their V8 in the mid Fifties , and so Studebaker moved more upmarket with a
V8 to compete . In Australia , the Studebaker was looked on as an upmarket
car so the increase in power kept it ahead of most of the competition . It did
cause some weird things to happen . For example , in 1958 the Packard two
door hardtop was the third most expensive car on the market here . No wonder
they only sold six of them . Then from 1960 onwards with Ford promoting its
Falcon heavily , Studebaker had the V8 for the Lark which helped differentiate it.

CRUISER

'All sounds good and makes sense, Bruce. Thanks. BP

Jessie J.
02-11-2012, 04:03 PM
The biggest difficulty in my opinion is there doesn't appear to be any way to hot up our engines to the extent folks do with GM,Ford and Chrysler units as they seem to want 600 or more horsepower.
Oh there are ways to hot 'em up (check out the details of Ted Harbit's "Chicken Hawk", or our various Bonneville contenders, 1000+ hp is attainable)
Its just the reality that the aftermarket performance vendors do not produce or support Studebaker applications, and hence Studebaker oriented articles do not showcase those popular aftermarket parts that generate the magazine sectors advertising revenue.
There simply is no financial incentive for these magazines to report on any Studebaker powered accomplishments.
Not unusual for years of pages full of color coverage on much slower, but far more popular makes and models.
About the only ones that even want to hear about Studebaker modifications, power figures, and wins are those of us that already own one.
The guys that get beat by our 'lowly Studebaker's' would rather forget it, much less have their supposedly hot model popular 'muscle car's' loss to a #%&@! STUDEBAKER! ballyhooed nationwide.



.

BobPalma
02-11-2012, 04:06 PM
The guys that get beat by our 'lowly Studebakers' would rather forget it, much less have their loss ballyhooed nationwide.

'Good one, Jesse. 'Prolly true! <GGG> BP

studegary
02-11-2012, 04:37 PM
Correct, Gary.

Depending on equipment, the B-block MoPar can be as easy as a Studebaker V8's water pump to replace. No easier, but just as easy.

(I think you meant 4-bolt housing, right?) <GGG> BP


I knew that it was poor wording in that it could be interpreted in two ways. I was referring to the "set up" that includes the "impeller, bearing & mount" as being four bolt.

studegary
02-11-2012, 04:40 PM
Hi again BP ,

The reason for the shift to predominantly V8 powerplants had a lot to do with
end pricing once our Government had levied import duty . The price difference
between a Champion and a Commander came closer , percentage wise , as
the levy didn't penalise the V8 at a higher rate than that imposed on the Six .

Then there was competition in the marketplace as Ford was heavily promoting
their V8 in the mid Fifties , and so Studebaker moved more upmarket with a
V8 to compete . In Australia , the Studebaker was looked on as an upmarket
car so the increase in power kept it ahead of most of the competition . It did
cause some weird things to happen . For example , in 1958 the Packard two
door hardtop was the third most expensive car on the market here . No wonder
they only sold six of them . Then from 1960 onwards with Ford promoting its
Falcon heavily , Studebaker had the V8 for the Lark which helped differentiate it.

CRUISER

Six 1958 Packard hardtops is nearly one percent of the total production. Did Australia have more than one percent of Studebaker production at that time?

8E45E
02-11-2012, 11:18 PM
I think this dovetails with the point I'm making.

That article was 48 years ago. I'm betting anyone that was on staff at HR back then has long since retired and maybe passed on. I wonder who there currently has the longest tenure, and what is it- maybe 20 years if that?

I'm sure they have respect for older history, but magazine sales are about what the readers want; and I'm betting that's not little-known engines. They did this on Facebook, where the demographic is even younger. So, it's no surprise to me that the Studebaker was not disrespected, it was completely unknown. I went to their Facebook page and read the threads about the poll; in a couple hundred comments there was no mention of the Stude; but there were a number of comments made by guys admitting they had little experience (read: youth) with much variety. (If anyone wants to see for themselves, go to Facebook and Hot Rod Mag, and look between December 19 and 21.) I haven't read the article, but they should have mentioned it was a small social media sampling, and therefore not that definitive. I wonder if they're trying to say that this list is really the Top 20, or merely what Facebook said is the Top 20? That can easily be two completely different lists.

I agree with everything BP wrote in the letter. But it is my opinion that this was simply an imperfect sampling experiment. It will be interesting to see their response, if any. Hopefully they will clarify; I doubt they will disagree.

Correction is important in this situation, and I applaud BP for writing. We just have to realize, there's a fine line between delivering needed correction, and coming off like a curmudgeonly old bunch of crabs. We've already got to live down CASO:)
As we know, Bob IS a school teacher. And part of obtaining high marks (and gaining respect of the readership) is taking on the responsibility of sufficient, and thorough research. Because the writer at HRM didn't do his research, Bob rightfully gave them an 'F' for FAIL!!

Craig

stude dude
02-12-2012, 01:18 AM
'All sounds good and makes sense, Bruce. Thanks. BP


Local assembly had a lot to do with it too. By 1963, the Studebaker Lark was the cheapest V8 on the market, and in some areas actually outsold its main Chev/Ford rivals.

cruiser
02-12-2012, 04:53 AM
To : Gary L - NY ,

Australia was always a 'small' market for both Studebaker and Packard as separate entities
and continued on once the "marriage in haste " took place . Annual Sales Figures Were :-

PACKARD
1950---94
1951---51
1952---54
1953---75
1954---46
1955---25
1956---46
1957---39
1958---32

STUDEBAKER
1950----27
1951---184
1952----97
1953---141
1954---134
1955---108
1956---103
1957----79
1958----80
1959---125
1960---199
1961---718
1962--1188
1963--1414
1964---974
1965---591
1966---607
1967----11
1968-----2
Now , as you can tell , the numbers are miniscule in the scheme of things
and the 'strong' numbers from 1960 to 1966 reflect local production of CKD
units sent here for assembly with some degree of 'local content' such as
tires ( tyres) , batteries , hubcaps etc . Hope this is of some interest to you.

CRUISER---------------- ( BRUCE) .

BobPalma
02-12-2012, 06:20 AM
As we know, Bob IS a school teacher. And part of obtaining high marks (and gaining respect of the readership) is taking on the responsibility of sufficient, and thorough research. Because the writer at HRM didn't do his research, Bob rightfully gave them an 'F' for FAIL!! Craig

Thanks, Craig; true, as outlined in the latter third of my Post #34 to this thread.

Another factor is any modest, previous relationship you may have built up with the person to whom you're writing. In this case, I have at least twice (maybe more) written David Freiburger over the last several years, praising his work in revitalizing Hot Rod as a true hot rod magazine and not just a showplace for the newest high-tech trinket from OEM and aftermarket parts manufacturers, as it had become under previous administrations.

For example, Freiburger received a complimentary note from me several years ago, when they did such a nice job with the feature article on Ted Harbit and The Chicken Hawk in the August 2006 Hot Rod...although the text suspiciously paralleled that which I wrote in the March 1996 Turning Wheels feature article of Ted, a copy of which Ted had furnished the Hot Rod writer "for reference." (Thankfully, he stopped short of outright plagiarism, however, so I suppose I should consider his -ahem- "attention" a compliment. <GGG>)

Freiburger really has done a nice job with the magazine and, quite frankly, I was surprised by this blatant lapse in mission execution. Of the several letters he's received from me since he took over, I believe this is the first one you'd say was a complaint. Hence, he will hopefully give it due attention.

In any case, given the nature of previous correspondence from me, he won't be in a position to roll his eyes toward the heavens and say, "Oh,[B] him again!"<GGG> BP

BobPalma
02-12-2012, 06:24 AM
To : Gary L - NY ,

Australia was always a 'small' market for both Studebaker and Packard as separate entities
and continued on once the "marriage in haste " took place . Annual Sales Figures Were :-

PACKARD
1950---94
1951---51
1952---54
1953---75
1954---46
1955---25
1956---46
1957---39
1958---32

STUDEBAKER
1950----27
1951---184
1952----97
1953---141
1954---134
1955---108
1956---103
1957----79
1958----80
1959---125
1960---199
1961---718
1962--1188
1963--1414
1964---974
1965---591
1966---607
1967----11
1968-----2
Now , as you can tell , the numbers are miniscule in the scheme of things
and the 'strong' numbers from 1960 to 1966 reflect local production of CKD
units sent here for assembly with some degree of 'local content' such as
tires ( tyres) , batteries , hubcaps etc . Hope this is of some interest to you.

CRUISER---------------- ( BRUCE) .

Interesting, Bruce; thanks again.

Should we consider those calendar year sales? I.e., the high-water-mark 1963 sales figure would reflect all Studebakers sold in calendar year 1963, which may have included some 1962 model year leftovers and a few of the redesigned 1964 models? BP

R2Andrea
02-12-2012, 09:13 AM
Great letter Bob. And when your next chance to respond comes, be sure to point out that ALL of Studebakers engines used forged conn rods and crankshafts. A feature NOT found in many of the brand X performance engines. They should check out their archives and re read their own articles as Craig points out as well.

CarCrosswordDan
02-12-2012, 12:59 PM
Great letter Bob. As always, your information is "RIGHT ON" !!

Chicken Hawk
02-12-2012, 01:26 PM
Great letter Bob. And when your next chance to respond comes, be sure to point out that ALL of Studebakers engines used forged conn rods and crankshafts. A feature NOT found in many of the brand X performance engines. They should check out their archives and re read their own articles as Craig points out as well.

And Rockers! I was really concerned when I used the stock rockers on the '51 with over 600 pound open spring pressure but never broke one!

Ted

Dick Steinkamp
02-12-2012, 01:32 PM
And Rockers! I was really concerned when I used the stock rockers on the '51 with over 600 pound open spring pressure but never broke one!

Ted

Good point...I have shoved push rods through the ends of stock stamped steel Chevy rockers. Tough to do with a Stude. :)

OTOH, Chevy small blocks through the small journal 327's of 68 or so also had forged cranks as did most other GM V8s of that era. I think GM figured out that with a little bigger journal that a cast crank was good for 800+ HP and they could save a dime on each crank by going to cast.

cruiser
02-12-2012, 07:58 PM
To ----- BP and Gary L .

Yes , the sales figures that I have quoted are Calender Year . They are actually
the number of new Studebaker Cars Registered in Australia for each Year .
Please note that these numbers do not include Trucks . Australia was not a big
market for Studebaker Trucks so the numbers would have been rather small .

CRUISER --------------------------- ( Bruce ) .

BobPalma
02-20-2012, 08:08 PM
Our Co-Operator High-Performance Advisor Jim Pepper also replied to Hot Rod, and forwarded a copy of his letter.

He granted permission to add it to this topic:


Dear David Freiburger,

I agree with the sentiments of Bob Palma in his recent letter on the merits and significance of the Studebaker V8.

You published photos of my 1963 Studebaker R2 Super Lark in the September 1983 coverage of the 1983 Street Machine Nationals. There were much nicer cars around me but my car always drew a crowd.

Fast forward to late 1993 or early 1994. You published a photo of the 1963 Avanti owned by Ron Hall that was the first Studebaker-powered car to go 200 MPH at the September World of Speed meet at Bonneville. This was done with a 304.5 CI Studebaker R3 V8 engine with a Paxton supercharger that was making about 630 HP with 6 pounds boost. The salt was wet and mushy in 1993 so we kept boost to a minimum in order to maintain vehicle control. I built a portion of this car. The car now resides in the Studebaker National Museum.

The point is that a Studebaker V8 might not have been the largest or built by the millions, but it certainly was as unique as a Buick nailhead. It offered features not found in the big three engines and not found in many performance engines. What other cars had a supercharger? The Studebaker V8 engine sure deserves an honorable mention.

Back in the late 1960s when I was in high school, my 1963 Super Lark ran mid- to high-13s on street tires through mufflers at Great Lakes Dragway in Union Grove, WI. It embarrassed many muscle cars on the track and the street that had at least 100 CI on me. Restoration of my Lark will start when the snow melts in Wisconsin this spring.

I still like the magazine. Keep up the good work.

Studebakerly
Jim Pepper

Thanks, Jim: Well done and well documented.

(FWIW: Surprisingly, I have not received any response from Hot Rod.) BP

Roscomacaw
02-21-2012, 07:59 AM
I've only kinda-sorta followed this thread, but insomnia has me skimming this morning. I like how BP and others have risen to the defense of my favorite V8. Ted may recall an ode to such that I wrote some time ago. It was partly a response to the "I'm gonna upgrade to an SBC" argument that still simmers - quitely of late, even tho embracers of such still keep the vigilance to slap down any idiot that would challenge it. I don't say much about it anymore, but I will say what I'm about to, since I think it IS relevant to HR's poll....

I RARELY do car shows. But when I do, it's even more of a rarity when someone looks under the hood of a Stude and KNOWS what they're looking at. MOSTLY (if it's a Stude V8) they're stymied as to just what sort of engine you've chosen to put your Studey back on the road. First - they're gonna be doubtful you know what the hell you're talking about. Everyone KNOWS Stude only ever had pathetic flathead sixes for motors.
Second - if they DID make a bad-ass V8 - how the heck could you be foolish enough to drive one around??? What if a spark plug wire failed? Where would you find a replacement? What if a piston came thru the side of it (fail-prone piece of junk that it is - hey, GM's still in business and Studebaker ain't) - and you were touring in the outback of Montana? Hoooooooooo baby!

Besides that.... your Stude CAN'T be cusstomized until it's got an SBC - like 80% of the rest of the "cusstoms" on display. The last car show I went to locally - there were TWO Studes in it. Both with SBCs for power. And this ISN'T a local phenomenon. So - just what conclusions are the average tire-kickers to come to - regarding the worth of the South Bend V8 - or even that one ever existed?

Go ahead. Pile on. I fully expect it. Besides, it's just my OPINION - not DICTATE.

BobPalma
02-21-2012, 08:13 AM
No piling on here, Bob, of course:

Just an enormous THUMBS-UP for your well-crafted observations.

(Sorry I don't have any cute icons, just COOL BEANS!)

Thanks so much....but, admittedly, I'm now mortified by your spark-plug wire scenario...hadn't even thought of that. 'May have to reconsider my position! <GGG> BP

warrlaw1
02-21-2012, 12:48 PM
My dad let me start our 6 cyl '57 hawk when church let out. I smucked the rear bumper of the car ahead of me. I was 10. I could have had a V8!

am not r2
02-21-2012, 07:16 PM
Yes I saw it and guessed who besides me said oh crap that was a mistake. go tell them Bob. R

sbca96
02-22-2012, 04:12 PM
(FWIW: NOT Surprisingly, I have not received any response from Hot Rod.) BP

Fixed it for you. ;)

Tom

Andy R.
02-22-2012, 04:43 PM
*slow clap*

It reminds me of a quote from Carl Thoms published in last month's Wheelbarrow Johnny (Sequoia Chapter Newsletter):
"Studebaker was building 100,000-mile cars when everyone else was building 50,000-mile cars."

IIRC, the statement was in response to someone under the assumption that Studebaker went out of business because they were unreliable or poor quality.

Son O Lark
03-05-2012, 10:56 AM
Hi Bob, have you received a response from Hot Rod yet?

BobPalma
03-05-2012, 12:48 PM
Hi Bob, have you received a response from Hot Rod yet?

Nope: NADA, none, zilch. (Words added to meet minimum "post-all" requirements! <GGG>) BP

cultural infidel
04-02-2012, 02:35 PM
Well Bob, almost a month has passed... anything yet? BTW, kudos for you on the letter. Well said.

BobPalma
04-02-2012, 03:03 PM
Well Bob, almost a month has passed... anything yet? BTW, kudos for you on the letter. Well said.

Nope, Sean; see Post #70. Thanks anyway! BP