Announcement

**jallen** · 08-22-2010, 01:06 AM

Not wanting to rain on your parade, but the heads on the Mustang probably flow at least 50% better than Studebaker heads and combined with all
the other modern improvements in valve train etc. the Mustang supercharger on the Studebaker probably would not improve the HP output, IMHO
the $6K price would be better spent elsewhere. IIRC the factory claimed less than 300 HP for the R2.

**DEEPNHOCK** · 08-22-2010, 04:38 AM

I wasn't contemplating doing this, just commenting on how it currently takes 6 grand to punch a 280cid engine to 378 rear wheel horsepower.
My question was to look back in comparison to see how much it cost to get to R2, or R3 spec's back in the day.

**JJB** · 08-22-2010, 05:46 PM

I believe BHP for an R2 is 287 and for a R3 is 335.

**41 Frank** · 08-22-2010, 06:21 PM

In my humble opinion comparing yesteryears horsepower ratings verses todays ratings is kind of like comparing apples and oranges. The 289 HP of the R-2 is probably closer to 250 in todays world. So the 378 HP rating of the Roush Mustang would likely be over 400 in yesteryears ratings.

By the way Jeff how much boost were they getting?

**Pat Dilling** · 08-22-2010, 08:39 PM

Yes different Measuring standards, the old standard was gross horsepower rated at the flywheel. Today they are net measurements including accessory drag. I believe the Roush measurement was probably at the rear wheels as well.

**Son O Lark** · 08-23-2010, 06:35 AM

Maybe Bob Palma knows the specifics. Wasn't the Plain Brown Wrapper or the Stude Tomato tested with a "at the rear wheels" dyno? I was thinking that the numbers were very surprising!

Announcement

Then and Now - Horsepower TV Roush Mustang

Then and Now - Horsepower TV Roush Mustang

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment