PDA

View Full Version : Horsepower spec question.



tutone63
08-17-2008, 12:51 PM
I was looking through my 1963 lark shop manual trying to find the horsepower rating for my 259 two-barrel. I realize that it will not be a very high number, but all I can seem to find in the manual for horsepower specs is 40.6. That seems rediculously low! Also, it states the same number (40.6) for the 259, 289 and the Super Jet Thrust! I know that something is amis, perhaps I am looking in the wrong place or I am mis-interpeting it. Is there someone who can shed some light, or possibly point me to a place where I can find horsepower breakdowns for the Lark linup? Thanks

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh54/tutone63/63larkside-1.jpg
1963 Lark Custom, 259 V8, TT, 4 doors, 2 tone paint. Driven often, always noticed. Man I love this car!!

N8N
08-17-2008, 12:57 PM
That's the AMA horsepower rating, which is only useful for tax purposes. I used to know how it was calculated, but I've forgotten... I think it was basically displacement based. Studebaker didn't really make a big deal out of their actual horsepower ratings, and there's debate as to whether they ever published "official" HP ratings for the R3/R4 engines.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

N8N
08-17-2008, 12:57 PM
That's the AMA horsepower rating, which is only useful for tax purposes. I used to know how it was calculated, but I've forgotten... I think it was basically displacement based. Studebaker didn't really make a big deal out of their actual horsepower ratings, and there's debate as to whether they ever published "official" HP ratings for the R3/R4 engines.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Guido
08-17-2008, 01:07 PM
These are the ratings that Studebaker advertised:

259 2V 180 HP
259 4V 195 HP
289 2V 210 HP
289 4V 225 HP
289 4V (R-1) 240 HP

Though I do not recall it being advertised, the supercharged 289 (R-2) was about 290 HP.

http://thumb14.webshots.net/t/63/663/9/36/86/2567936860097493054TXiheL_th.jpgGuido Salvage - "Where rust is beautiful" and real Studebaker horsepower lives

See pictures here: http://community.webshots.com/user/GuidoSalvage

Hiding and preserving Studebakers in Richmond, Goochland & Louisa, Va.

Guido
08-17-2008, 01:07 PM
These are the ratings that Studebaker advertised:

259 2V 180 HP
259 4V 195 HP
289 2V 210 HP
289 4V 225 HP
289 4V (R-1) 240 HP

Though I do not recall it being advertised, the supercharged 289 (R-2) was about 290 HP.

http://thumb14.webshots.net/t/63/663/9/36/86/2567936860097493054TXiheL_th.jpgGuido Salvage - "Where rust is beautiful" and real Studebaker horsepower lives

See pictures here: http://community.webshots.com/user/GuidoSalvage

Hiding and preserving Studebakers in Richmond, Goochland & Louisa, Va.

BobPalma
08-17-2008, 01:09 PM
:) What Nate said about the AMA ratings for tax purposes, Nathan.

Now, to answer your question about 1963 horsepower ratings "as advertised:"

259 2-barrel: 180
259 4-barrel: 195

289 2-barrel: 210
289 4-barrel: 225

R1: 240
R2: 289

R3: 335
R4: 280

:D BP

BobPalma
08-17-2008, 01:09 PM
:) What Nate said about the AMA ratings for tax purposes, Nathan.

Now, to answer your question about 1963 horsepower ratings "as advertised:"

259 2-barrel: 180
259 4-barrel: 195

289 2-barrel: 210
289 4-barrel: 225

R1: 240
R2: 289

R3: 335
R4: 280

:D BP

BobPalma
08-17-2008, 01:13 PM
:) I was composing while Guido was posting!

Guido: Studebaker's official R2 figure was 289 HP. I've got a personal letter from Studebaker PR Head Bill Dredge with the four R-engine figures once they finally got around to determining them![:0];) :DBP

BobPalma
08-17-2008, 01:13 PM
:) I was composing while Guido was posting!

Guido: Studebaker's official R2 figure was 289 HP. I've got a personal letter from Studebaker PR Head Bill Dredge with the four R-engine figures once they finally got around to determining them![:0];) :DBP

tutone63
08-17-2008, 01:22 PM
Thanks alot guys!:) I knew it was out there somewhere!


http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh54/tutone63/63larkside-1.jpg
1963 Lark Custom, 259 V8, TT, 4 doors, 2 tone paint. Driven often, always noticed. Man I love this car!!

BobGlasscock
08-17-2008, 02:29 PM
BP's post is more colorful..... still second, though.

I always get irritated when I start typing a response, click on post, and there are one or two posts between the one I read and my response. I just CAN'T be that darn slow!

'50 Champion, 1 family owner
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg316/studebakerbob/SDC%20avatar/Studebakerstuff019.jpghttp://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg316/studebakerbob/SDC%20avatar/Studebakerstuff018.jpg

BobGlasscock
08-17-2008, 02:29 PM
BP's post is more colorful..... still second, though.

I always get irritated when I start typing a response, click on post, and there are one or two posts between the one I read and my response. I just CAN'T be that darn slow!

'50 Champion, 1 family owner
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg316/studebakerbob/SDC%20avatar/Studebakerstuff019.jpghttp://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg316/studebakerbob/SDC%20avatar/Studebakerstuff018.jpg

bams50
08-17-2008, 02:36 PM
So, is the 289 number for the r2 accurate, or have actual engines (in factory form) been proven higher or lower?

Robert (Bob) Andrews Owner- Studebakeracres- on the IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys!)
Parish, central NY 13131

"Some people live for the rules, I live for exceptions"- 311

"It was the last chance for Studebaker to turn things around. The company was down to its last bullet, and this new small car was it. They called it the Lark"

bams50
08-17-2008, 02:36 PM
So, is the 289 number for the r2 accurate, or have actual engines (in factory form) been proven higher or lower?

Robert (Bob) Andrews Owner- Studebakeracres- on the IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys!)
Parish, central NY 13131

"Some people live for the rules, I live for exceptions"- 311

"It was the last chance for Studebaker to turn things around. The company was down to its last bullet, and this new small car was it. They called it the Lark"

StudeRich
08-17-2008, 02:48 PM
Actual H.P. Yes, never lower! Studebaker did not over-rate H.P.

Also the net H.P. rating is (was) usually stated as "S.A.E." Horsepower, I doubt there was any such thing as AMA then.


quote:So, is the 289 number for the r2 accurate, or have actual engines (in factory form) been proven higher or lower?

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA

bams50
08-17-2008, 02:54 PM
OK. Being a child of the later muscle-car era, I know plenty of performance cars purposely under-reported the actual HP. Probably no reason to do so that early.

Robert (Bob) Andrews Owner- Studebakeracres- on the IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys!)
Parish, central NY 13131

"Some people live for the rules, I live for exceptions"- 311

"It was the last chance for Studebaker to turn things around. The company was down to its last bullet, and this new small car was it. They called it the Lark"

bams50
08-17-2008, 02:54 PM
OK. Being a child of the later muscle-car era, I know plenty of performance cars purposely under-reported the actual HP. Probably no reason to do so that early.

Robert (Bob) Andrews Owner- Studebakeracres- on the IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys!)
Parish, central NY 13131

"Some people live for the rules, I live for exceptions"- 311

"It was the last chance for Studebaker to turn things around. The company was down to its last bullet, and this new small car was it. They called it the Lark"

JRoberts
08-17-2008, 03:03 PM
I remember that Jon Myer said in a talk he gave several years ago that Studebaker's R engines were rated significantly lower than what their actual horsepower was. I seem to remember that the supercharged versions were off further than the non-supercharged versions.

Joe Roberts
'61 R1 Champ
'65 Cruiser
Editor of "The Down Easterner"
Eastern North Carolina Chapter

JRoberts
08-17-2008, 03:03 PM
I remember that Jon Myer said in a talk he gave several years ago that Studebaker's R engines were rated significantly lower than what their actual horsepower was. I seem to remember that the supercharged versions were off further than the non-supercharged versions.

Joe Roberts
'61 R1 Champ
'65 Cruiser
Editor of "The Down Easterner"
Eastern North Carolina Chapter

BobPalma
08-17-2008, 03:38 PM
quote:Originally posted by bams50

OK. Being a child of the later muscle-car era, I know plenty of performance cars purposely under-reported the actual HP. Probably no reason to do so that early.

Robert (Bob) Andrews

[:0] Not so, Bob!

There was good reason to underrate high-performance engines by the late 1950s: The NHRA formula to determine in what STOCK class you ran at the drags was your model's advertised shipping weight divided by the advertised horsepower. So there was a strong incentive for manufacturers to underrate horsepower on cars that could be candidates for early stock-car drag racing.

OTOH, cars that would probably not be drag-raced could be fudged the other way; i.e, 305 HP 1956 Cadillac Eldorados. :DBP

BobPalma
08-17-2008, 03:38 PM
quote:Originally posted by bams50

OK. Being a child of the later muscle-car era, I know plenty of performance cars purposely under-reported the actual HP. Probably no reason to do so that early.

Robert (Bob) Andrews

[:0] Not so, Bob!

There was good reason to underrate high-performance engines by the late 1950s: The NHRA formula to determine in what STOCK class you ran at the drags was your model's advertised shipping weight divided by the advertised horsepower. So there was a strong incentive for manufacturers to underrate horsepower on cars that could be candidates for early stock-car drag racing.

OTOH, cars that would probably not be drag-raced could be fudged the other way; i.e, 305 HP 1956 Cadillac Eldorados. :DBP

PackardV8
08-17-2008, 04:14 PM
quote:
I remember that Jon Myer said in a talk he gave several years ago that Studebaker's R engines were rated significantly lower than what their actual horsepower was. I seem to remember that the supercharged versions were off further than the non-supercharged versions.

Actually, what was true then and now, the advertised horsepower ratings were accurate for the car as delivered. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) horsepower ratings are corrected to a standard air pressure, humidity and temperature. Supercharged engines are less effected by changes in weather, especially altitude. In effect, they make their own weather. What the NHRA found is Studebakers ran stronger in colder weather, stronger at higher altitudes, and so on. The Big Three didn't like being beaten by Studebakers, so they forced the NHRA to factor the R2 and R3 out of the Stock classes, saying supercharged engines had an unfair advantage.

Bottom line, when all the specifications are run through a DynoSim program, the predicted horsepower is exactly what Studebaker claimed. When the drag strip results are run through the accepted formulae for converting trap speed to horsepower, the numbers come out pretty close to advertised horsepower. It is to be expected Ted Harbit, with more than forty years of supertuning, manages to run a bit faster and thus is making a bit more than 289 horsepower in the R2 Stewed Tomato. However, the R3 Plain Brown Wrapper is about where it should be with 335 horsepower.

thnx, jack vines

PackardV8

PackardV8
08-17-2008, 04:14 PM
quote:
I remember that Jon Myer said in a talk he gave several years ago that Studebaker's R engines were rated significantly lower than what their actual horsepower was. I seem to remember that the supercharged versions were off further than the non-supercharged versions.

Actually, what was true then and now, the advertised horsepower ratings were accurate for the car as delivered. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) horsepower ratings are corrected to a standard air pressure, humidity and temperature. Supercharged engines are less effected by changes in weather, especially altitude. In effect, they make their own weather. What the NHRA found is Studebakers ran stronger in colder weather, stronger at higher altitudes, and so on. The Big Three didn't like being beaten by Studebakers, so they forced the NHRA to factor the R2 and R3 out of the Stock classes, saying supercharged engines had an unfair advantage.

Bottom line, when all the specifications are run through a DynoSim program, the predicted horsepower is exactly what Studebaker claimed. When the drag strip results are run through the accepted formulae for converting trap speed to horsepower, the numbers come out pretty close to advertised horsepower. It is to be expected Ted Harbit, with more than forty years of supertuning, manages to run a bit faster and thus is making a bit more than 289 horsepower in the R2 Stewed Tomato. However, the R3 Plain Brown Wrapper is about where it should be with 335 horsepower.

thnx, jack vines

PackardV8

BobPalma
08-17-2008, 05:41 PM
quote:Originally posted by PackardV8

[quote]
The Big Three didn't like being beaten by Studebakers, so they forced the NHRA to factor the R2 and R3 out of the Stock classes, saying supercharged engines had an unfair advantage.

However, the R3 Plain Brown Wrapper is about where it should be with 335 horsepower.

jack vines


[8] Honest, Jack; I'm not sure where that story came from, but it just isn't true.

Studebaker shot itself in the foot by not releasing advertised horsepower figures for Jet-Thrust engines in the summer of 1963. Yes, stock R-engine cars had to run Gas and Gas/Supercharged classes in the summer of 1963, but it was only because there was no factory advertised horsepower rating available to compute which stock class they belonged in.

The personal letter I have from Studebaker Corporation PR Director Bill Dredge, gleefully informing me that "we now have horsepower figures for the R-series engines...," and attaching those figures to the letter, is dated November 25, 1963. Now what good did that do for a Studebaker enthusiast who wanted to order an R2 Lark in February 1963, campaign it at his local drag strip all spring and summer 1963, and then maybe make a run at The National Drags over Labor Day weekend in 1963?

I further know this personally because I was involved with Studebaker salesman Jim Franklin from Childers Studebaker in Indianapolis, who talked the owner into ordering a black, full-package, R2/4-speed 1963 Super Lark convertible in late spring 1963, to campaign at Indianapolis Raceway Park. I followed Jim around like you'd expect a 17-year-old puppy dog to do, and wrote letters to Studebaker on his behalf, protesting their failure to release R-engine horsepower figures so Jim could get out of the Gas/Supercharged classes in which he was forced to compete.

Really, it was Studebaker's own fault the R-series engines didn't get nearly the good press they could have through NHRA drag racing in 1963, Jack. Not that NHRA was as pure as the driven snow, but you can't factor an advertised horsepower per advertised pound of shipping weight if one of the two figures is not available.[:0][xx(]

(And BTW: Jim Franklin's 1963 R2 convertible is the very car owned today by SDCer Jeff Bradel and shown on the front cover of the February 1999 Turning Wheels!) :DBP

studegary
08-17-2008, 08:05 PM
quote:Originally posted by BobPalma


quote:Originally posted by bams50

OK. Being a child of the later muscle-car era, I know plenty of performance cars purposely under-reported the actual HP. Probably no reason to do so that early.

Robert (Bob) Andrews

[:0] Not so, Bob!

There was good reason to underrate high-performance engines by the late 1950s: The NHRA formula to determine in what STOCK class you ran at the drags was your model's advertised shipping weight divided by the advertised horsepower. So there was a strong incentive for manufacturers to underrate horsepower on cars that could be candidates for early stock-car drag racing.

OTOH, cars that would probably not be drag-raced could be fudged the other way; i.e, 305 HP 1956 Cadillac Eldorados. :DBP


This reminds me of when I was drag racing my 1957 President Classic with 225 advertised horspower in 1960. By adding the few pounds for power steering to the base weight, my President Classic moved to another drag class. I only had a problem with a particular 1957 Pontiac (not my friend's Bonneville).

Gary L.
Wappinger, NY

SDC member since 1968
Studebaker enthusiast much longer

HNCadet
08-17-2008, 08:55 PM
quote:Originally posted by PackardV8


quote:
I remember that Jon Myer said in a talk he gave several years ago that Studebaker's R engines were rated significantly lower than what their actual horsepower was. I seem to remember that the supercharged versions were off further than the non-supercharged versions.

Actually, what was true then and now, the advertised horsepower ratings were accurate for the car as delivered. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) horsepower ratings are corrected to a standard air pressure, humidity and temperature. Supercharged engines are less effected by changes in weather, especially altitude. In effect, they make their own weather. What the NHRA found is Studebakers ran stronger in colder weather, stronger at higher altitudes, and so on. The Big Three didn't like being beaten by Studebakers, so they forced the NHRA to factor the R2 and R3 out of the Stock classes, saying supercharged engines had an unfair advantage.

Bottom line, when all the specifications are run through a DynoSim program, the predicted horsepower is exactly what Studebaker claimed. When the drag strip results are run through the accepted formulae for converting trap speed to horsepower, the numbers come out pretty close to advertised horsepower. It is to be expected Ted Harbit, with more than forty years of supertuning, manages to run a bit faster and thus is making a bit more than 289 horsepower in the R2 Stewed Tomato. However, the R3 Plain Brown Wrapper is about where it should be with 335 horsepower.

thnx, jack vines

PackardV8


To add one more confirmation to this thread, R3 engine B92 after it's rebuild by Myer's and checked here in California dyno'd @ 333.7HP.

starlightchamp
08-17-2008, 09:37 PM
Back to the original question on the manual spec of 40.6 Horsepower.
Back in history , the British government asked the Royal Auto Club to recommend how
to tax automobiles. They came up with a formula based on number of cylinders, cylinder bore, and
engine efficientcy. That formula was:
HP= cylinder bore "D" squared x number of cylinders divided by engine efficeintcy of 40%---or 2.5
So a Stude 289 with a 3.56 bore is : = 3.96 x 3.96 x 8/2.5 or 40.6 HP.
Now , as most dumb tax laws go, this caused the Brit car builders, to decrease bore and increase stroke to lower
their buyers tax burden. Maybe why we have so many cars built that way in England and Europe.
It's called taxable Horsepower and some U.S states used it for years even though it made little sense.

Dick Curtis
Santa Barbarba

tutone63
08-18-2008, 01:00 PM
quote:Originally posted by starlightchamp

Back to the original question on the manual spec of 40.6 Horsepower.
Back in history , the British government asked the Royal Auto Club to recommend how
to tax automobiles. They came up with a formula based on number of cylinders, cylinder bore, and
engine efficientcy. That formula was:
HP= cylinder bore "D" squared x number of cylinders divided by engine efficeintcy of 40%---or 2.5
So a Stude 289 with a 3.56 bore is : = 3.96 x 3.96 x 8/2.5 or 40.6 HP.
Now , as most dumb tax laws go, this caused the Brit car builders, to decrease bore and increase stroke to lower
their buyers tax burden. Maybe why we have so many cars built that way in England and Europe.
It's called taxable Horsepower and some U.S states used it for years even though it made little sense.

Dick Curtis
Santa Barbarba


Bizarre....

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh54/tutone63/63larkside-1.jpg
1963 Lark Custom, 259 V8, TT, 4 doors, 2 tone paint. Driven often, always noticed. Man I love this car!!

Laemmle
08-18-2008, 07:57 PM
Per SASCO:
R-3=335bhp
R-4=280bhp

We all know it was much more, but the insurance companies........



quote:Originally posted by N8N

That's the AMA horsepower rating, which is only useful for tax purposes. I used to know how it was calculated, but I've forgotten... I think it was basically displacement based. Studebaker didn't really make a big deal out of their actual horsepower ratings, and there's debate as to whether they ever published "official" HP ratings for the R3/R4 engines.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

PackardV8
08-18-2008, 09:55 PM
Hi, Bob,

You are correct about the R2/3 being forced to run in the Gas classes prior to the release of the horsepower figures. However, once the horsepower figures were released, the NHRA decided superchargers were an unfair advantage and moved them up a class so they weren't beating the Big Three.

One reason this happened, at a big event, a half-mile drag at the old Riverside Raceway, an R3 Avanti had second fastest time. The Avanti was stone stock and beat every other stock class car there except a full-drag-prepared 426" Max Wedge Plymouth.

thnx, jack vines

PackardV8

PackardV8
08-18-2008, 09:55 PM
Hi, Bob,

You are correct about the R2/3 being forced to run in the Gas classes prior to the release of the horsepower figures. However, once the horsepower figures were released, the NHRA decided superchargers were an unfair advantage and moved them up a class so they weren't beating the Big Three.

One reason this happened, at a big event, a half-mile drag at the old Riverside Raceway, an R3 Avanti had second fastest time. The Avanti was stone stock and beat every other stock class car there except a full-drag-prepared 426" Max Wedge Plymouth.

thnx, jack vines

PackardV8