Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Hawk front to rear weight bias?

  1. #1
    President Member bensherb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Tracy / Goleta Ca.
    Posts
    1,152

    Hawk front to rear weight bias?

    Sorry can't find anything with the search, but bet it's been asked before.

    I found a 1956 report that the '56J with the "heavy" Packard engine had a 59% to 41% front to rear weight bias.

    Does anyone know what that bias might be for a later, or specifically 1962, Hawk with the Studebaker 289 might be?

  2. #2
    Speedster Member 56GH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Posts
    377
    If you got your weight distribution numbers from Frank Ambrogio's excellent article, "Studebaker's 1956 Golden Hawk" from the June 2005 issue of SDC's "Turning Wheels," it told about the 44 lb difference between the 289 Studebaker V-8 and the 352 Packard V-8, and how the 1957 Golden Hawk weight distribution was allegedly 57% front and 43% rear. But after doing some actual weighing himself, Frank found insignificant differences between a his two 56Js and a 57 GH. I wonder if there would be that much difference between a 1957 and a 1962?

    Bill L.
    Last edited by 56GH; 09-17-2017 at 04:26 PM. Reason: Clarification
    Bill L.
    1962 GT Hawk

  3. #3
    Silver Hawk Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Spokane, WA, USA.
    Posts
    8,464
    The apples-to-apples comparison, i.e. whether the cars have power steering, power brakes, supercharger, manual or automatic transmission are necessary for making real numbers; the engine weight actual differences are slight. The Packard V8 isn't that much heavier than a supercharged Studebaker. The '56 does carry the engine weight center a couple of inches forward, but not enough to make any real difference.

    No one mentions it, but the '55-58 Saginaw power steering box is much heavier than the '59-66 Bendix linkage assist system.

    The '62-64 grill is much lighter than the '56-61.

    Moving the battery to the trunk is the single most cost-effective weight redistribution one can make on a Studebaker.

    jack vines
    PackardV8

  4. #4
    Speedster Member 56GH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Posts
    377
    If you moved the battery to the trunk, would you recommend changing the long custom-made battery cable diameters, Jack? And -- install the battery on the passenger side?
    Bill L.
    1962 GT Hawk

  5. #5
    President Member t walgamuth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    lafayette in
    Posts
    4,593
    Quote Originally Posted by 56GH View Post
    If you moved the battery to the trunk, would you recommend changing the long custom-made battery cable diameters, Jack? And -- install the battery on the passenger side?
    yes and yes. Heavier cable and mount Right rear.
    Diesel loving, autocrossing, Coupe express loving, Grandpa Architect.

  6. #6
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Crib Point, Victoria, Australia.
    Posts
    171
    I have a simple xls spreadsheet for calculating disc diameters etc. In my 60 302 powered Hawk I used 54% front bias.
    I may be helpful.
    I cannot attach it here so pm me and I will email it.
    Here is a jpeg.
    Brakes_calc.jpg
    Regards
    Allan

  7. #7
    President Member bensherb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Tracy / Goleta Ca.
    Posts
    1,152
    Quote Originally Posted by 56GH View Post
    If you got your weight distribution numbers from Frank Ambrogio's excellent article, "Studebaker's 1956 Golden Hawk" from the June 2005 issue of SDC's "Turning Wheels," it told about the 44 lb difference between the 289 Studebaker V-8 and the 352 Packard V-8, and how the 1957 Golden Hawk weight distribution was allegedly 57% front and 43% rear. But after doing some actual weighing himself, Frank found insignificant differences between a his two 56Js and a 57 GH. I wonder if there would be that much difference between a 1957 and a 1962?
    Bill L.
    Actually yes, but he quoted Auto Age March 1956 Staff Report: "59% of the totalweight was on the front wheels and 41 % was on the rearwheels" But I hadn't read the entire article untill now.

    I'm looking for as close to 56% front an 44% rear as I can get as that will match the 2004 Ford Mustang that my entire brake system has come from. If the weight bias is the same, the stock Ford proportioning valve should be perfect. Both cars weigh the same depending on what reports you read; some say the Mustang is heavier some the Stude but neither by much at all. As Jack mentioned moving the battery to the trunk is probably a good idea, but I've always found trunk mounted batteries to be a huge PIA in street cars. From Frank Ambrogio's tests it would appear we're already pretty darn close as is. So the only difference the hawk is 19.2 inches longer... so it'll take a little longer to go around a turn, but it'll ride nicer on the highway!

  8. #8
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Crib Point, Victoria, Australia.
    Posts
    171
    The 19.2" longer wheel base will make a big difference to the weight transfer to the front on heavy braking. At least the rears are less likely to lock up. Only way to tell is to try it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •