PDA

View Full Version : Paxton Division of Studbaker Corp.



JRoberts
01-11-2013, 11:31 AM
I found this ad on the H.A.M.B. Maybe it should have been in the Stove Huggers, but it is Studebaker related.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/393010_4200849226621_1833606286_n.jpg

Roscomacaw
01-11-2013, 11:38 AM
I think it belongs here, Joe! Having owned a '62 coupe for a time, I'd love to drive one with a Paxton on it. Wonder if there's any of these setups still around today? Wonder how they compared to the factory turbo setup?

jlmccuan
01-11-2013, 12:37 PM
Isn't that the setup that used a belt that twisted a half turn to reverse the rotation so they could use the normal Paxton direction? As much trouble as we have with SC belts, I can't imagine it would be a good thing.

BobPalma
01-11-2013, 12:39 PM
62% added horses? Wow! I hope the owners didn't exercise that option too frequently, or....

'Reminds me of an item in Hot Rod magazine's Q&A Tech Column decades ago.

Some guy wrote in and asked if the Tech Editor thought he could build his 312 Ford to wind up to 7,000 RPM.

The Tech Editor's answer? "Yep; once!"

'Pretty funny, I thought. :D BP

PackardV8
01-11-2013, 01:08 PM
Andy Granatelli never met a superperlative he didn't love. Fortunately, he was able to back up most of them at Bonneville and Indianapolis.

The performance claims for Paxton-boosted horsepower increases unfortunately wasn't one of them. The Studebaker R1 had 240 horsepower. The Paxton-blown R2 had 289 horsepower. That's a 20% increase and that's real world of what a Paxton would do on a typical otherwise stock engine.

Your opinions and results may vary.

jack vines

sals54
01-11-2013, 01:54 PM
Jack,
True on the Stude engine, but what about a Stude that had the flow capacity of Ch*vy's Power Pack heads??? I wonder if the additional breathing may have helped increase the output of the Paxton? Better breathing, faster rpm climb, higher rpm, more power? I know there's a limitation on the Paxton itself, but perhaps the Stude's limitations were simply manifested by the addition of the Paxton? How much power would a cammed Ch*vy 283 make with Power Pack heads and a Paxton??? Anyone wanna put one on a 65 Daytona and find out?? Again, just surmising out loud.

studegary
01-11-2013, 02:01 PM
I think that 30-33 per cent HP increase is all that could be expected from any stock engine with the addition of a belt driven supercharger.

PackardV8
01-11-2013, 02:15 PM
As Sal suggests, engines which breathe better benefit more from superchargers, but I can't remember any engine on which a Paxton produced a true 62% power increase.

The R3's 335hp minus say 15 horsepower for the extra cubic inches is a 33% increase over the R1 because the better breathing ports, valves and camshaft. (pretty much what Gary suggested.)

Because the Paxton was designed back in the 1940s, it has a relatively limited ability to produce boost at higher volumes of air. It is at its best on sub-300" engines.

For example, a Paxton would produce a higher percentage horsepower increase on a 224" than on the 304.5" with the same heads.

The ad posted earlier specifically referenced the Corvair, which was one of the most intake-flow-limited of any post-'49 engine design. If an engine has a restricted intake ability, past the choke point, a supercharger just raises boost pressure. In reality, boost pressure is a measure of work done without producing horsepower. It just raises the heat and an intercooler becomes necessary.

Turbocharged Indy engines breathe really well and consequently still made a lot of horsepower when limited to relatively low boost.

jack vines

sals54
01-11-2013, 04:13 PM
Good call on the Indy car comparo, Jack. I just looked up the Indy car specs for turbo engines. 134 cu inches making 500 HP at a measly 12,000 RPMs. And lets realize that's in a 1500 lb car. But I'll bet I could get my 259 to spin that fast... well, if I could get a mechanical clutch to affix it to the turbine of jet engine, that is.

SN-60
01-11-2013, 08:55 PM
The factory prototype Paxton supercharger for the Corvair had reversed rotation..... via a 'mirror image' scroll housing, different impeller, and possibly.. changes to the internal oil pump. (A rare item indeed!!)

jlmccuan
01-12-2013, 01:43 AM
I made a long post concerning the basics of boosted airflows and the cfm limits of the SN scroll case, but it went off to nowhere. So I'll boil it down. Put a blowoff valve into your intake system. Set it at 1 psi. Then set it at 5 psi. I guarantee you will have increased performance at 5psi. The boost equals work not done is simplistic and misleading. Anytime the is a greater pressure differential there will be an increase in flow. Now, it is a diminishing returns equation. And certainly as the supercharger reaches it's cfm limit it takes more and more HP and inputs more heat.

As to belt driven superchargers, I think the stock beltdriven engines in several modern supercharged cars are capable of more than 33% increase in HP. Many diesel engines, for example, running Roots style blowers and derivatives. The Bonneville SSEi and Eaton equipped little Ford V8's come to mind.

63t-cab
01-12-2013, 08:58 AM
WOW,if Ralph got wind of this " REALLY REALLY un-safe at any speed "
I found this ad on the H.A.M.B. Maybe it should have been in the Stove Huggers, but it is Studebaker related.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/393010_4200849226621_1833606286_n.jpg

PackardV8
01-12-2013, 11:36 AM
As to belt driven superchargers, I think the stock beltdriven engines in several modern supercharged cars are capable of more than 33% increase in HP. . . The Bonneville SSEi . . . come to mind.

The GM Series 1 L27 3.8 NA is rated at 170hp and the L67 supercharged at 205 and later 225 hp, a 21% and 33% increase respectively

The Gen II NA was 205 hp and the supercharged Bonneville SSEi at 270 hp, a 32% increase in HP.

jack vines

jlmccuan
01-12-2013, 02:52 PM
Thanks, Jack. I was driving and reading the forum by text to speech and posted speech to text, so it was difficult to quote the exact numbers. A simple pulley change and eprom modification took that number up substantially. Remember the Shelby Series II used production supercharged aftercooled Aurora engines and took that way up. One of my biggest mistakes was not snatching up one of those engines when Shelby went belly up. They sold unused engines complete for $1500.00

bezhawk
01-12-2013, 03:07 PM
Jim that 34 now smokes 'em thru 2nd rather easily now!:!!:

swvalcon
01-12-2013, 04:05 PM
I 've heard numbers like 550 hp out of a superchraged 302 ford

PackardV8
01-12-2013, 04:50 PM
As is our wont, this is getting way, way off topic from Paxton superchargers and what they would produce when installed on a stock, unmodified engine.


I 've heard numbers like 550 hp out of a superchraged 302 ford

Yes, in fact there are normally aspirated 302"s which make 550 horsepower.


A simple pulley change and eprom modification took that number up substantially.

Yes, with several aftermarket modifications which void the warranty, the GM 3.8 can be made to produce more horsepower.


Remember the Shelby Series II used production supercharged aftercooled Aurora engines and took that way up. /of my biggest mistakes was not snatching up one of those engines when Shelby went belly up. They sold unused engines complete for $1500.00

Agree, that would be a great installation in most any Stude, provided one had the technical sophistication to handle all the electricals.

But back to the subject, what does any of this have to do with Paxtons?

jack vines

swvalcon
01-12-2013, 07:30 PM
Jack some day I hope to see what one will do on a 2bbl stock 64 289. When I'am done with my restoration I'am going to look for one for the hawk. Thought I would do a rear wheel dyno on it and then again after adding the paxton.

8E45E
01-12-2013, 07:54 PM
Remember the Shelby Series II used production supercharged aftercooled Aurora engines and took that way up. /of my biggest mistakes was not snatching up one of those engines when Shelby went belly up. They sold unused engines complete for $1500.00

But back to the subject, what does any of this have to do with Paxtons?

Look at the photos in the last post in this thread: http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?61606-RIP-Carroll-Shelby-Jan-11-1923-May-11-2012&highlight=shelby

Craig

PackardV8
01-12-2013, 09:36 PM
Look at the photos in the last post in this thread: http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?61606-RIP-Carroll-Shelby-Jan-11-1923-May-11-2012&highlight=shelbyCraig

Six degrees of Kevin Bacon. Yes, agree, well-known that Shelby offered a Paxton option on mid-'60s GT350s when he was with Ford. But this discussion of the Series II is forty years later when he was in his sixth successive iteration of Shelbys, now with Olds engines and Eaton superchargers, those have to do with Paxtons? Your post, you see it, I don't. But then, let's not take any of this seriously.Six degrees of Kevin Bacon. Shelby offered a Paxton option on '60s cars when he was with Ford so forty years later when he was in his sixth successive iteration of Shelbys, now with Olds engines and Eaton superchargers, those have to do with Paxtons? Your post, you see it, I don't.


Jack some day I hope to see what one will do on a 2bbl stock 64 289. When I'am done with my restoration I'am going to look for one for the hawk. Thought I would do a rear wheel dyno on it and then again after adding the paxton.

FWIW, 210hp for the NA 2-bbl 289" and 275hp for the 2-bbl supercharged Golden Hawk, is a 31% increase. However, we'd have to say the '57-58 GH might have been overrated as a 7.5 compression, stock cam, 2-bbl. If we look at the R2 with a 4-bbl, better cam and valve springs and 9:1 compression and made 289 horsepower. There should have been more than a fourteen horsepower difference between the two engines.

We're awaiting with great interest your chassis dyno results.

jack vines

junior
01-12-2013, 11:44 PM
few points for consideration here....365$ for a Paxton supercharger, isn`t that cheap compared to todays price?
Isn't a supercharged Corvair a huge why-bother when you could get a turbocharged model from the factory, and %-wise, wasn't the turbo model a huge power improvement over the non-turbo model? IIRC wasn't the naturally asperated model about 90hp, and the turbo about 150hp??
Paxton's current website has some pretty awesome power increasing #'s that they quote, like 47% increase over a stock Camaro SS. Cheers, Junior

PackardV8
01-13-2013, 01:00 AM
few points for consideration here....365$ for a Paxton supercharger, isn`t that cheap compared to todays price?
Isn't a supercharged Corvair a huge why-bother when you could get a turbocharged model from the factory, and %-wise, wasn't the turbo model a huge power improvement over the non-turbo model? IIRC wasn't the naturally asperated model about 90hp, and the turbo about 150hp??
Paxton's current website has some pretty awesome power increasing #'s that they quote, like 47% increase over a stock Camaro SS. Cheers, Junior

The Paxton kit for the Corvair came out three years before the turbo model was available. And $365 equals $2,746.10 in today's funny money, less than they cost at present.

With seventy years of compressor design improvements on which to draw, the Novi supercharger is essentially a belt/gear driven turbocharger. It has completely different technology in the drive system and compressor system than the old Paxton and the LS Chevys breathe better than pure racing engines of a few years ago.

But again, the 2013 Novi and the LS have nothing to do with the original discussion of Paxtons and Corvairs and 1962.

But it's the dead of winter and bench racing here always gets a little crazy along about now.

jack vines

t walgamuth
01-13-2013, 07:09 AM
This is an interesting thread. All the things I thought of posting have already been posted.;)