'53-'58 V-8 carb differences

[Johnnywiffer]

Does anyone know the yearly differences between the carb used on '53-'58 V-8s? I know there were 4 different engine sizes so there must have been SOME diffs.

TIA
John

[PackardV8]

Are you asking about the 2-bbl carb differences?

jack vines

[Johnnywiffer]

Yes.

John

[StudeRich]

John you can compare the Stromberg/Studebaker detail parts list in the Chassis parts catalog, but I believe you will find basically only larger jets on the larger bore '55 & on vs the '53-'54 small bore engines, and no diff. between 224,259 & 289 except GH.

The GH's used a different model Carb. that had a down draft air horn, and are not a part of this discussion.

[Johnnywiffer]

So what you are saying is that Studebaker used the same size venturii for all these carbs and the only increase was in jets? I was thinking that was about what happened. But just think, if they'd have increaseed the venturii size, power would have gone up too. Does seem kinda strange.

John

[PackardV8]

Hi, John,

Nobody was about power in the fifties. The majority of the engines sold by all manufacturers were flathead six cylinders (which I'd rather have than the 216" OHV Chevy). The few OHV8s, including Cadillac, Oldsmobile and Studebaker, all came only with 2-bbl carbs and single exhausts. By 1955, the 4-bbl carb and dual exhausts were starting to be optional on the most expensive models.

The real high performance 1955 cars, Chrysler 300B, Thunderbird, Corvette, Studebaker Speedster, were very limited production, very expensive and very slow sellers.

Studebaker missed the great opportunity to lead with performance. The higher horsepower engines cost only a few dollars more to build as the base models, but it was the prevailing marketing philosophy of the time to make the buyer dearly pay for upscale bling in order to get the most powerful engines. Imagine if Studebaker had come out with the R-series engines in 1957 and made them available in any model at actual cost. By 1964, it was too little, too late.

In another thread, there is a link to an article comparing the Lark and the Rambler. The Lark was way overweight and way underpowered as a 6-cylinder economy car. However, imagine it equipped with an R1 in 1959 - no competition in that marketplace. Like they say, "Unless you're the lead dog, the view never changes." Stude could have become the lead dog in the performance field.

However, conservative Studebaker was attempting to follow the same philosophy which made GM and Ford so successful. Ford had the neat little 221"-260"-289"-302" V8 engine, but only started offering it in the Falcon in mid-year '63 and then only as a 2-bbl 260". Their marketing strategy forced the buyers who wanted a high-performance sporty car to pay $3500 for a 289" HiPo Mustang to get what was underneath a $2500 Falcon. That extra $1000 was pure profit.

Could'a, should'a, would'a - we're still playing it fifty years later. The Red Sox finally won a World Series, but Stude ain't gonna.

jack vines

[Johnnywiffer]

"...Studebaker missed a great opportunity..."

How many times has that phrase been used?

Over the years, Studebaker was a leader in many ways and, of course, with 2010 hindsight, it's easy to say "...Studebaker missed a great opportunity...".







Which reminds me....

Once in the mid-fifties I was at the parts counter of my friendly Studebaker dealer in San Antonio











Studebaker Automatic Drive, it DID seem to take off faster.

Did it actually? Dunno. But I do know that with all the fun I had at every 'stop-light grand prix' my mileage went from about 17 down to about 13. I eventually took it off and sold it to one of the guys with an Oldsmobile who had lusted after it when he saw it on my car. He got drunk one night and ran into a telephone pole. The insurance company totaled his car and the carb went with it.



John