Conv weights

[Kenmike2]

Did Stude put them on the '64 Convertible. I have a 61 and a 63 in the shop and both have them. The one 64 I have (It's a Super Lark) does not them. Anyone have experience with the 64?
REgards
Ken Michael

[StudeRich]

quote:Originally posted by Kenmike2

Did Stude put them on the '64 Convertible.

You do not need experience with a '64-L to know this, you just need to have, and know how to use a Studebaker Chassis Parts Catalog.

1337262P '60S-L Right, Weight, Radiator Grille Panel Balance
1332263P '60S-L Left.... "

1337264P '60V-L Right... "
1337265P '60V-L Left..... "

1339090 '61S,V-L Right... "
1339091 '61S,V-L Left..... "

1342466 '62S,V-L, '63S,V-L,P Right, Weight
1342467 '62S,V-L, '63S,V-L,P Left, Weight

(2)1358195 '64S,V-L,P Weight, Radiator Air Intake Panel Balance *

* = Used on P Models with sliding roof only.

They are the same on Jet Thrust, Super Jet Thrust.

StudeRich

[Kenmike2]

Thanks Studerich.
I don't have a catalog that covers the 64. Therefore, my question.
Regards
Ken Michael

[Bullet]

I had a '64L 6-cyl and it had the weights.

[barnlark]

You do not need experience with a '64-L to know this, you just need to have, and know how to use a Studebaker Chassis Parts Catalog.

1337262P '60S-L Right, Weight, Radiator Grille Panel Balance
1332263P '60S-L Left.... "

1337264P '60V-L Right... "
1337265P '60V-L Left..... "

1339090 '61S,V-L Right... "
1339091 '61S,V-L Left..... "

1342466 '62S,V-L, '63S,V-L,P Right, Weight
1342467 '62S,V-L, '63S,V-L,P Left, Weight

(2)1358195 '64S,V-L,P Weight, Radiator Air Intake Panel Balance *

* = Used on P Models with sliding roof only.

They are the same on Jet Thrust, Super Jet Thrust.

StudeRich

I recently had to ship a set of these rather heavy weights and was interested in what the differences were for the 1960 6 cylinder convertibles. By the way, the above part number for the 1960 6 cylinder cars' left side is incorrect. It should be 1337263P: Similar to the right side.

Anyway, after an email discussion, it made me look it up and discover that 1960 Larks did indeed have different part numbers between the 60V & 60S convertibles. Were they less weight, a different shape in the concave area? I read other threads mentioning some Wagonaires as having 33 lb. weights, but mine were over 35 lbs. each (on a USPS scale) with the flat rate box and actually were one pound heavier on one side making it 36.5 lbs.

I seem to remember a thread mentioning some '60 6 cylinder convertible owners not having them, but there are part numbers for them in the Chassis Catalog. I doubt they were optional. Anyone know how much lighter the 6 cylinder weights were, or what the difference might be? The bolt position and shape for the 1960 versions seem to be the distinguishing factor from other years, but the shape & bolt position would be the same in 1960 convertibles. The threaded bolt holes are 5-3/4" center to center, for example. Anyone ever weigh an original 60S front end weight?

[Lark8girl]

Could someone please give the location and the purpose of "weights" on covertibles? Lark VIII girl wants an explanation, and I have heard of 'weights' but never inquired as to their purpose.
Husband of Lark VIII girl,

[barnlark]

If you have a Chassis Catalog you can see them on page 138. The bolts for them are on each side of the front panel under your front bumper. They are directly behind that front panel, unless they had been removed during a paint job, or a front clip disassembly. There are two curved plates welded from the factory to each inner fender on the 1960 convertibles to accept the weights from behind as well. I didn't crawl under Lark VIII girl's beautiful front clip while it was at the Summit Meet two years ago to know if they are still there! Sorry. They were designed to limit any cowl shake (whole car shake) from the lack of a solid roof. Structurally, Studebaker Lark convertibles and, later on, sliding roof wagons were deemed movers and shakers early on.

[jts359]

Hi The purpose of the weights is prevent an issue called Cowl shake , The idea being by putting weights at one end or the other you sort of stretch it over the center , Most car makers did it back then to convertibles , some put in the back and others put them in the front

[studegary]

They are harmonic balancers. Many cars used them, but most were hidden away somewhere like inside a fender.

Some people take them off thinking that they are doing a good thing by eliminating weight. They weren't put there for fun or to add weight - there was/is a reason for them. I have followed cars where they were removed and the car shakes all over, even though people in the car say that they can not feel it.

[barnlark]

Interesting that you call them "harmonic balancers", Gary. They may play a part in the car's "harmonic" balance of weight distibution, (and I'm certainly not an engineer) but none of the parts books call them that. Studebaker just referred to them as weights in my parts books. Harmonic balancers, or vibration dampers, are usually terms having to do with the crankshaft, or engine/trans vibration, aren't they?

[Bredehoft]

I only have a smattering of physics knowledge, but I don't think the term "harmonic balancer" would be mis-used in this case - at least as far as physics is concerned. Harmonics can occur in anything that is subjected to constant or varying forces. A graphic example of harmonics in a structure that one would think would be immune is the classic video of the Tacoma Narrows bridge. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw (the force applied here was the wind)

True, typically in the automotive world, the harmonic balancer is found on the front end of a crankshaft, but harmonics can occur many places - like an out of balance tire - and those harmonics can be balanced

--george

[Bob Andrews]

I don't think the term "harmonic balancer" would be mis-used in this case - at least as far as physics is concerned.

Just semantics, I suppose. On Camaro convertibles they're upright canisters mounted in the trunk in the corners, and are generally referred to as "c ocktail shakers".

[studegary]

They are weights, as listed in the parts books. Their purpose is not to add weight to the car, but rather to dampen the harmonics of the body/chassis structure. This is to help prevent what some refer to as cowl shake. That is why I refer to them as harmonic balancers (the purpose of adding these weights to the car).
I do have degrees in engineering and physics, but do not pretend to be an expert in this particular field.

[packardHawk58]

Did Stude put them on the '64 Convertible. I have a 61 and a 63 in the shop and both have them. The one 64 I have (It's a Super Lark) does not them. Anyone have experience with the 64?
REgards
Ken Michael

Hey Ken, I sent you a PM, did you get it.
Regards Brian.

[barnlark]

Well, since my degrees aren't in engineering, I'll gladly defer to you guys in the know! That's why I don't write tech books. I would just call them what they are, as Studebaker did. Matter of semantics, absolutely. I just mentioned that I found it interesting that they were referred to as harmonic balancers in that sense, not that it was wrong, btw.

It sure seems to me that while adding these weights are certainly a means to an end, (decreasing cowl shake for a car's harmonic balance) I would never think that adding these weights to the car isn't their purpose. To me, that's exactly their purpose - to add weight in a specific location to achieve that balance. There actually could be a thousand car parts that contribute to a car's total harmonic balance in the literal sense. I don't call tires, shocks and engine mounts "cushions" for example, even though that's what they do. Others may.

I work with many kinds of engineers everyday and I can appreciate that they speak another language than the rest of us. It's fascinating to learn something new every day. When I installed my harmonic damper on my engine I guess it was just one of many!

If I order a harmonic balancer from Studebaker International tomorrow, I bet I don't get these convertible weights or even lead weights for my wheels, however.