I would like to build a very high performance Hawk or Lark with a 259 or 289 V8.I really like the R3 supercharged cars,and would like to build an engine with a Studebaker sort of approach such as supercharging.I can't get enough of George Krem and Ted Harbit's cars!Need one of my own!Any suggestions?
-
-
If you are on a budget, start with the R2+ cam, 4 barrel and some head work with R3 valves. The supercharger set up will run you 2-3K, but you could home brew a turbo for under a grand.
JDP
Arnold Md.
Studebaker On The Net
My Ebay Items
64 GT hawk
64 Commander 2 dr.
63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk (Black) #2
63 Avanti R1
63 Daytona convert
63 Lark 2 door
63 Lark 2 door #2
62 Lark 2 door
60 Hawk
59 3E truck
52 Starliner
51 Commander
JDP Maryland -
If you are on a budget, start with the R2+ cam, 4 barrel and some head work with R3 valves. The supercharger set up will run you 2-3K, but you could home brew a turbo for under a grand.
JDP
Arnold Md.
Studebaker On The Net
My Ebay Items
64 GT hawk
64 Commander 2 dr.
63 R2 4 speed GT Hawk (Black) #2
63 Avanti R1
63 Daytona convert
63 Lark 2 door
63 Lark 2 door #2
62 Lark 2 door
60 Hawk
59 3E truck
52 Starliner
51 Commander
JDP MarylandComment
-
Do you already have a 259 Lark for the project? If so, keep the 259! You'd be surprised how fast those little buggers can be made to run, and you'll save the cost and time of swapping to a 289. 
You have to decide early on if you want to supercharge the car. As John says, it's just a matter of money, accumulating all the bits and pieces for a 1963-1964 R2-style setup.
If you can't swing that kind of money, the R1/R2 cam, 4-bbl, and duals are the way to start, again as John suggested. But don't hesitate to supercharge the 259 if the engine is sound and you can afford it: I built an R2-ized 1960 Lark Regal 4-door, [:0]yes, 4-door[:0], in the late '60s to drive to Purdue and it was a lot of fun. The little 259s love to wind, and respond well to the supercharger setup.
(Help for your addiction is on the way: The February 2007 Turning Wheels, probably now about on press, has seven pages devoted to the 2006 Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Racing activities of all those involved.
)
Good luck, and keep us posted. [
] BP
We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge. 
G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.Comment
-
Do you already have a 259 Lark for the project? If so, keep the 259! You'd be surprised how fast those little buggers can be made to run, and you'll save the cost and time of swapping to a 289.
You have to decide early on if you want to supercharge the car. As John says, it's just a matter of money, accumulating all the bits and pieces for a 1963-1964 R2-style setup.
If you can't swing that kind of money, the R1/R2 cam, 4-bbl, and duals are the way to start, again as John suggested. But don't hesitate to supercharge the 259 if the engine is sound and you can afford it: I built an R2-ized 1960 Lark Regal 4-door, [:0]yes, 4-door[:0], in the late '60s to drive to Purdue and it was a lot of fun. The little 259s love to wind, and respond well to the supercharger setup.
(Help for your addiction is on the way: The February 2007 Turning Wheels, probably now about on press, has seven pages devoted to the 2006 Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Racing activities of all those involved.)
Good luck, and keep us posted. [] BP
We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.
G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.Comment
-
I might just do a 259 because I have it too.I really like the R3 style supercharged engines.I am finishing a resto on a 60 Lark 2 door sedan,and hope to find another to build as a sleeper of sorts with monster power.Has to stay all Stude though!Comment
-
I might just do a 259 because I have it too.I really like the R3 style supercharged engines.I am finishing a resto on a 60 Lark 2 door sedan,and hope to find another to build as a sleeper of sorts with monster power.Has to stay all Stude though!Comment
-
Hi, Lark259,
Congratulations on embarking on an ambitious project. We always welcome another R3-clone on the street. Just get your budget in order and be aware the step up from 259" hot rod engine to R2 specs can double the cost of the project and then to go to R3 can double the cost again.
Today's cost of an all-new parts R3-spec engine with the correct supercharger, brackets, waterpump, carb box, cam and kit, ported heads, custom rods and pistons, valves and springs, headers, oil pan and windage tray and associated bits usually runs a minimum of $10k when done correctly by someone who knows how.
Throw a supercharger and carb box on a 259" and 99% of the Stude folks who walk by won't know the difference, and you will only have about $2k in it, but it won't be an R3.
FWIW, a 259" will usually make 90% as much horsepower as an equivalent 289". However, once the engines are both built to racing specs you'll never get 10% more power for less cost than putting in a 289" crank and good pistons.
thnx, jv.
PackardV8PackardV8Comment
-
Hi, Lark259,
Congratulations on embarking on an ambitious project. We always welcome another R3-clone on the street. Just get your budget in order and be aware the step up from 259" hot rod engine to R2 specs can double the cost of the project and then to go to R3 can double the cost again.
Today's cost of an all-new parts R3-spec engine with the correct supercharger, brackets, waterpump, carb box, cam and kit, ported heads, custom rods and pistons, valves and springs, headers, oil pan and windage tray and associated bits usually runs a minimum of $10k when done correctly by someone who knows how.
Throw a supercharger and carb box on a 259" and 99% of the Stude folks who walk by won't know the difference, and you will only have about $2k in it, but it won't be an R3.
FWIW, a 259" will usually make 90% as much horsepower as an equivalent 289". However, once the engines are both built to racing specs you'll never get 10% more power for less cost than putting in a 289" crank and good pistons.
thnx, jv.
PackardV8PackardV8Comment
-
You can get even more information about your questions by visiting and searching at this site: http://racingstudebakers.com/stl-web...90bc2c16db39be
Tim K.quote:Originally posted by Lark259
I would like to build a very high performance Hawk or Lark with a 259 or 289 V8.I really like the R3 supercharged cars,and would like to build an engine with a Studebaker sort of approach such as supercharging.I can't get enough of George Krem and Ted Harbit's cars!Need one of my own!Any suggestions?
'64 R2 GT HawkTim K.
\'64 R2 GT HawkComment
-
You can get even more information about your questions by visiting and searching at this site: http://racingstudebakers.com/stl-web...90bc2c16db39be
Tim K.quote:Originally posted by Lark259
I would like to build a very high performance Hawk or Lark with a 259 or 289 V8.I really like the R3 supercharged cars,and would like to build an engine with a Studebaker sort of approach such as supercharging.I can't get enough of George Krem and Ted Harbit's cars!Need one of my own!Any suggestions?
'64 R2 GT HawkTim K.
\'64 R2 GT HawkComment
-
How to get max performance from a Stude V-8? I'm surprised some smart aleck hasn't said "Replace it with a Chevy!"Comment
-
How to get max performance from a Stude V-8? I'm surprised some smart aleck hasn't said "Replace it with a Chevy!"Comment
-
Once it's done, I would put it under the hood of a very slippery '53 Coupe.
Brad Johnson,
SDC since 1975, ASC since 1990
Pine Grove Mills, Pa.
'33 Rockne 10, '51 Commander Starlight. '53 Commander Starlight
'56 Sky Hawk in processComment
-
Once it's done, I would put it under the hood of a very slippery '53 Coupe.
Brad Johnson,
SDC since 1975, ASC since 1990
Pine Grove Mills, Pa.
'33 Rockne 10, '51 Commander Starlight. '53 Commander Starlight
'56 Sky Hawk in processComment
Comment