PDA

View Full Version : The street-legal Plain Brown Wrapper....



BobPalma
09-27-2011, 11:08 AM
...last week at The 2011 Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Race, posted a better ET (12.664, to be exact) than the last three cars in this million-dollar drag race:

http://www.wimp.com/dragrace/

Hmmmm.....so much for almost 50 years of advanced technology....<GGG> BP

warrlaw1
09-27-2011, 11:26 AM
LOL. People under estimate the Wrapper...and Ted, too. My little 55 HT LOOKS better than those modern HiPo offerings, at least in my opinion:)

Alan
09-27-2011, 01:10 PM
$225,000 starting price for a 2 year old car that is only 1 second quicker than the wrapper and it came in second. Just doesn't make economic sense. Must be the CASTF in me.

JDP
09-27-2011, 01:27 PM
$225,000 starting price for a 2 year old car that is only 1 second quicker than the wrapper and it came in second. Just doesn't make economic sense. Must be the CASTF in me.

"Only one second" when you are talking going from the 12's to the 11's is a major deal BTW. Maybe a 200 extra HP deal. The Brown wrapper wrapper is a amazing car, but you can't deny 50 years of technology. i.e. that Nisson has AC, cruise and all the amenities, corners like it's on rails and gets decent fuel economy. A better comparison would be the Mustang that's the same money in 1964 dollars as the wrapper, but goes a bit faster and has all the modern goddies.

Pat Dilling
09-27-2011, 01:55 PM
On top of what John pointed out, also consider the actual production numbers of the PBW type cars (1?). Add the fact that these cars were probably driven to the track and back home or wherever, and that they were running on an airport runway versus a prepared drag strip and the comparison fades a little more. As impressive as the Wrapper is, modern technology definitely has the edge. Still an interesting observation.

Pat

BobPalma
09-27-2011, 02:14 PM
Some people have commented to me privately that it is occasionally difficult to imagine this being a pro-Studebaker forum, when folks fall all over themselves to prove how "cool" they are, doing their darndest to undermine what was obviously posted as a little fun.

The phrase "lighten up" comes to mind. BP

Jett289
09-27-2011, 02:31 PM
WOW that is a great video .. I would love to be able to drive any one or all of them cars . I have a couple SVT fords that are fast and handle like a dream and with all the ammenties . Id rather drive them on longer trips then my old 64 Daytona .. Still driving the Studebaker is fun with all the peoples stares the sound of that V8 and all the comments it makes my day .

JDP
09-27-2011, 02:38 PM
Some people have commented to me privately that it is occasionally difficult to imagine this being a pro-Studebaker forum, when folks fall all over themselves to prove how "cool" they are, doing their darndest to undermine what was obviously posted as a little fun.

The phrase "lighten up" comes to mind. BP


I'm very pro Studebaker, but perhaps having grown up in South Bend I don't put them on quite as high a pedestal. Since I spent a lot of time on the drag strip, I felt I had to point out that a one second difference in ET when you are in the 11-12 second range is a big deal. Not taking a thing away from the R3's, they were amazing, but so is a lot of modern iron. I grew up having to live with my Studebaker being called a South Bend Vibrator and having a girl friend ask "Why did you buy a Studebaker ?", put stayed pro-Studebaker for 50 years. I don't love them because I think they were the finest car ever built, I love them in spite of the fact that they weren't.

nels
09-27-2011, 02:39 PM
I have to agree with Bob on this one. It just appears that there are some members who have to pour ice water on any flicker of pride a Stude owner comes up with. Given the size of Studebaker corp, the amount of money they had available and the size of their engineering team; they gave more performance per $, per engineer and per the size of the company than ANY production automobile company on the globe.... then or now!!

JDP
09-27-2011, 02:41 PM
WOW that is a great video .. I would love to be able to drive any one or all of them cars . I have a couple SVT fords that are fast and handle like a dream and with all the ammenties . Id rather drive them on longer trips then my old 64 Daytona .. Still driving the Studebaker is fun with all the peoples stares the sound of that V8 and all the comments it makes my day .

I feel the same way about driving a R2 Avanti on a summer day. All the discomfort is worth it when I see the cars reflection in a store window or get a thumbs up from another driver.

PackardV8
09-27-2011, 02:50 PM
Hmmmm.....so much for almost 50 years ofadvanced technology....<GGG> BPHmmmmm . . . Bob, don't forget to add the PBW is the only one which will carry six passengers and with enough headroom for the driver to wear a homburg. I mean really . . . .

Yes, the PBW is a certified Studebaker legend. We should be eternally grateful to George and Ted for keeping the flame alive.

No, the 12.664 sec PBW is a drag-strip-only race car. Cuts a quick, fast quarter mile, but a real, usable car, no. Driving 4.56 gears on the highway at 75 MPH for a long trip at 4,000 RPMs, a toss-up as to which would happen first - the driver would go deaf from the noise, go broke paying $4 gal @ 8 MPG or the R3 would toast some irreplaceable components.

Maybe, comparisons of Studebakers with the best of modern cars is a losing battle. Today's cars are quick on the drag strip, fast on the top end, handle on a road course, stop on a dime, quiet on the highway, decent fuel economy, pass current emissions tests, very safe and comfortable to drive. Let's just appreciate Studebakers as unique survivors with unique attributes.

jack vines

warrlaw1
09-27-2011, 03:10 PM
I have an Acura Legend Coupe, the second top $ Honda sold at that time (the NSX was just too wild for me). It goes like stink, handles like a dream and looks good, too. Still, if I leave the Stude at home and take the Acura instead, the girls at the drive-through are always disappointed. One asked: Ahh, what happened to your SPORTS car?

JDP
09-27-2011, 03:12 PM
Hmmmmm . . . Bob, don't forget to add the PBW is the only one which will carry six passengers and with enough headroom for the driver to wear a homburg. I mean really . . . .

Yes, the PBW is a certified Studebaker legend. We should be eternally grateful to George and Ted for keeping the flame alive.

No, the 12.664 sec PBW is a drag-strip-only race car. Cuts a quick, fast quarter mile, but a real, usable car, no. Driving 4.56 gears on the highway at 75 MPH for a long trip at 4,000 RPMs, a toss-up as to which would happen first - the driver would go deaf from the noise, go broke paying $4 gal @ 8 MPG or the R3 would toast some irreplaceable components.

Maybe, comparisons of Studebakers with the best of modern cars is a losing battle. Today's cars are quick on the drag strip, fast on the top end, handle on a road course, stop on a dime, quiet on the highway, decent fuel economy, pass current emissions tests, very safe and comfortable to drive. Let's just appreciate Studebakers as unique survivors with unique attributes.

jack vines


On a related note, I have to think Studebaker would have been lucky to survive even a few more years with it's limited engineering funds needed to keep up much beyond the 70's. They performed almost impossible feats to hang in as long as they did, imagine the budget needed just to comply with emission and safety regulations. How likely would they be to be able to be competitive today without being say a re-badged Mercedes ?

1962larksedan
09-27-2011, 03:16 PM
Yes: the new stuff is more pleasant to drive (most of the time); but, the Old School vehicles def receive a lot more thumbs-ups! :D

And on a more pragmatic note: I'm rather tall and the ergonomics of many current production vehicles 'suck', to be polite.

jimmijim8
09-27-2011, 03:43 PM
Jealousy and trying to pull the rug out from someone that does their darndest to promte our marque is not in everybodys blood. Serves no purpose other than causing ill will. Poor taste at it's best. Thanks Bob and keep on keeping on. jimmijim. I for one commend you for your efforts. No fun allowed here without repercussion from the bean shooters. jimmijim
Some people have commented to me privately that it is occasionally difficult to imagine this being a pro-Studebaker forum, when folks fall all over themselves to prove how "cool" they are, doing their darndest to undermine what was obviously posted as a little fun.

The phrase "lighten up" comes to mind. BP

PackardV8
09-27-2011, 04:24 PM
I'm very pro Studebaker, but perhaps having grown up in South Bend I don't put them on quite as high a pedestal. There you have it; one can be pro-Studebaker, and JDP is a PRO, and still discuss the weaknesses as well as the strengths.

As they say, "Your opinions may vary." For some of us, reasonable and factual discussion about what Studebakers were and are is enough. We like them for the thing itself.

Taking one fact or statistic out of context and thus proving the Studebaker was the best, most technically advanced car ever made, for example, "The 1952 Champion gets better gas mileage than a $350,000 2012 Ferrari," If that works for you, then welcome to it.

Bottom line - third generation Studebaker owner, been driving them for fifty years. Can be pro-Studebaker and still be a rational human.

jack vines

BobPalma
09-27-2011, 04:35 PM
There you have it; one can be pro-Studebaker, and JDP is a PRO, and still discuss the weaknesses as well as the strengths.

As they say, "Your opinions may vary." For some of us, reasonable and factual discussion about what Studebakers were and are is enough. We like them for the thing itself.

Taking one fact or statistic out of context and thus proving the Studebaker was the best, most technically advanced car ever made, for example, "The 1952 Champion gets better gas mileage than a $350,000 2012 Ferrari," If that works for you, then welcome to it.

Bottom line - third generation Studebaker owner, been driving them for fifty years. Can be pro-Studebaker and still be a rational human. jack vines

That's not the point, Jack.

My original post, not edited but when first posted, has <GGG> at the end, indicating a tongue-in-cheek comment about "50 Years of Technology."

That should indicate that the post is being made as a fun topic, not to be taken as a launching point for anyone out to showcase their intellectual wherewithal when it comes to technological comparisons.

Kapeesh? (Is that how you spell kapeesh? I don't know.)

Reference Nelson Bove's Post #9. I PMd Nels to thank him for that, because he "gets it." BP

PackardV8
09-27-2011, 05:14 PM
Capisce, Bob. Yes, I understand you completely.

jack vines

Pat Dilling
09-27-2011, 05:20 PM
I am not really sure how to respond, or even if I should. I made my comments as a point of conversation, "bench racing" if you will. Was not my intent to rain on anyone's parade or insult a Studebaker icon. I got my first Studebaker when I was in high school in 1968, endured much derision from my friends with a smile. I am proud of my Studebakers and those of other folks that I know. Excuse me if I have offended some of the faithful.

jbwhttail
09-27-2011, 07:27 PM
Bob;

I saw the jest of your post, we must remember if there is not a dollar to be made then it is not worth posting <GGG>jbwhttail

kurtruk
09-27-2011, 07:40 PM
Can we STOP before we lose Forum members again? Let it go! :(

55coupe
09-27-2011, 07:51 PM
I just wondered what the times would have been if all drivers were equal.

nels
09-27-2011, 08:06 PM
I just wondered what the times would have been if all drivers were equal.

Ted is one heck of a good driver for sure. I guess what I wonder is: what would the Wrapper do if it had a set of 8 inch slicks on the back and open headers.
I also know that when George was thinking about retireing the car he wanted to install a modern five speed transmission conversion, change the rear end gearing and use it on the street somewhat and even thought about driving it to some nationals. I'm glad he changed his mind but I think it would have worked out.

Dan Timberlake
09-27-2011, 08:23 PM
from the Hemmings link, very near the end -
"There were ....as has become tradition, a legion of Studebaker diehards running R1 and R2 models, and those guys donít often lose."

BobPalma
09-27-2011, 08:42 PM
I just wondered what the times would have been if all drivers were equal.

An excellent point, Stephen...and, undoubtedly, some of the cars were automatics and some were five and six-speed manuals.

It would be all but impossible to have equal drivers in all cars at the same time, so the only honest way to make the evaluation they did would be to have each driver drive all 11 cars and record said times.

Then have the next driver drive all eleven cars, and so on until all eleven drivers had driven all eleven cars and the 11 elapsed times (one with each driver) recorded for each of the 11 cars.

THEN they could average the 11 times posted by each car (one time for each driver in each car) and post each car's average elapsed time.

But that would have taken a whole lot longer and would have been far less dramatic than having all 11 cars in a heads-up race...and "the show must go on," it would appear.

To prove this point, I'm reminded of a time at The Muncie Dragway about 4 or 5 years ago. I've told this story before, but not sure when and where, so bear with me:

My younger brother Stanley was there with the 1967 427 Ford Fairlane he built for drag racing at The Pure Stock Muscle Car Drags, but this was at The Munice Dragway for practice. Stanley did not drive the car in competition, but had a young, designated hot shoe friend named Dan Kirchner (not sure of that last name spelling) who drove for him. Dan was well-experienced and a good driver.

But on this day, Dan was having trouble. Try though they might, they could not get the 427 Fairlane into the 12s, and they had made 3 or 4 passes trying. Low, low 13s, yes; but not the 12s.

Now it so happened (honest, this is the truth: I was there) that Ted Harbit was also there, practicing with The Stude Tomato, I think it was. You know where this is going, but I'll continue anyway...

We were all sitting around shooting the breeze, bench racing and commiserating over Stan and Dan's inability to get the 427 Fairlane into the 12s. Stan asked Ted, who had never sat in the car, much less driven it, if Ted would like to make a pass.

So Ted dons his helmet, hops in the Fairlane, buckles up, and promptly banged off somewhere in the high 12s, perhaps 12.997, on his very first pass! TRUE! <GGG>

So your point about drivers is well taken, Stephen. BP

JDP
09-27-2011, 08:55 PM
I just wondered what the times would have been if all drivers were equal.


The Nisson GT-R in the video does much better with a pro driver and slicks, still pretty much pure stock other than the slicks. Found on the net:

"This car set a world record for stock turbo Nissan GTRs running 10.3-second 1/4 mile at 136 mph
Mod List:
Drag radials at the rears. Street tires in the front
Full exhaust
Injectors
Running E85 tune by Jack Cecil "

Never in a million years did I expect to see street legal cars run in that range. Than we get in to the silly range with the new Lexus. (At 400K, it had better be, but the technology is fun to see)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5R-oi91bd4

jclary
09-27-2011, 09:00 PM
So Ted dons his helmet, hops in the Fairlane, buckles up, and [B]promptly banged off somewhere in the high 12s, perhaps 12.997, [COLOR=purple]on his very first pass! TRUE! <GGG>

So your point about drivers is well taken, Stephen. BP

I have heard it said many times...especially of good baseball hitters...it is all in the hand to eye coordination.

Apparently in Drag Racing...it is hand, eye, and foot coordination! Ted is exceptional!

BobPalma
09-27-2011, 09:26 PM
from the Hemmings link, very near the end -
"There were ....as has become tradition, a legion of Studebaker diehards running R1 and R2 models, and those guys don’t often lose."

Thanks for the research, Dan.

I found the whole article:

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2011/09/27/pure-stock-drags-2011-recap/

BP

R3 challenger
09-27-2011, 09:35 PM
The R3 has been in the Wrapper since early 1965, and the car currently has 14,100 actual miles on it. For a good part of my adult life, I lived in a Western suburb of Chicago, and I drove the R3-powered Wrapper the 240 mile (round trip) distance to South Bend several times to attend SDC national and zone meets. I had a bit of fun on the Indana Tollway more than once. <GGG> At that time, it had a 3.73 axle ratio. I also drove it down to Ted's place in the late '60s, and at least once to Bob's place in Indianapolis. So it has seen highway duty, and it runs great on the road. The first time the car was ever on a trailer was in 1998 on the way to our first Pure Stock Drags.

starliner62
09-28-2011, 06:38 AM
I often wonder what kind of times the Wrapper and the Tomato would run with some slicks, open exhaust and some suspension tweaking.

8E45E
09-28-2011, 08:38 AM
Never in a million years did I expect to see street legal cars run in that range. Than we get in to the silly range with the new Lexus. (At 400K, it had better be, but the technology is fun to see)

John, this sums up my take on the entire subject. A decently running R3 driving in stop-and-go traffic to and from work and other chores wouldn't stay in its prime state of tune for very long, versus these modern day cars with VVT, and sophisticated electronic engine management to keep them at optimum performance and efficiency regardless of the driving conditions their owners force them to run at. Remember, an R3 was NOT really recommended for street use whereby these modern day engines ARE.
Craig

BobPalma
09-28-2011, 11:24 AM
John, this sums up my take on the entire subject. A decently running R3 driving in stop-and-go traffic to and from work and other chores wouldn't stay in its prime state of tune for very long, versus these modern day cars with VVT, and sophisticated electronic engine management to keep them at optimum performance and efficiency regardless of the driving conditions their owners force them to run at. Remember, an R3 was NOT really recommended for street use whereby these modern day engines ARE. Craig

Back to my Post #17, Craig...and Nels' Post #9.

To repeat, my <GGG> in the original post should have served as a freindly flag that this thread was opened for tongue-in-cheek fun, not a launching point for everyone's erudite knowledge of 1964 Studebakers not being up to 2011 automobile technology standards.

The [disgusting to me, inappropriate] citations of Studebaker shortcomings that followed indicates the need for ego service provided by the forum, quite frankly, because no one in their right mind would deny the automotive technological advances of the last 50 years, myself included. Such things should be assumed as common knowledge among participants on an automobile-based forum, and need not be repeated or confirmed.

It reminds me of The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's ill-advised "50 Years of Safety Progress" stunt in 2009. If you remember, they destroyed a nice, mostly original 1959 Chevrolet Bel-Air Six sedan to prove that a 2009 Malibu was safer than a 1959 Chevrolet Bel-Air. That should be obvious to most people.

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss155/BobPalma/DSCF1955.jpg

Folks who need to see a nice, entry-level, fun, collector car like a 1959 Chevrolet six sedan destroyed to prove the point aren't worth the destruction of such a car if they aren't any brighter than that to begin with, in my humble opinion. (And if you further recall, I checked out that 1959 Bel-Air at the 2008 Newport Indiana Antique Auto Hill Climb -exactly three years ago this coming Sunday, ironically- so I know it was an unusually-nice, mostly-original car....now lost to the egos of IIHS executives eager to suck up to the appropriate government safety czars in nearby Washington DC, indirectly disparaging our hobby as we seek to preserve such cars and keep them on the road to enjoy and promote automobile history.)

I doubt there is anyone on the forum who really thinks a 1964 Studebaker is a better piece of daily transportation than a 2011 Ford Focus. Using forum space to suggest otherwise is every bit as silly as destroying a 1959 Bel-Air to prove it isn't as safe as a 2009 Malibu; everyone on an automotive forum should "get it" without having to beat up on the Studebaker or destroy the Bel-Air to make the point.

Yes, we will necessarily point out Studebaker deficiences in the course of sharing information to keep them operable; that's legitimate. What isn't legitimate (IMHO, of course,) is pointing out their deficiencies as compared to cars and trucks that have had the benefit of a half-century R&D after Studebaker fielded their best effort.

If someone wants to open a topic entertaining same, that's fine with me; knock yourself out. But it wasn't me in this case; I put <GGG> in the wording to indicate tongue-in-cheek jabbing at current-technology cars. (Trust me; I'm reminded of the "goodness" of current-technology cars every time I look at the 187,000-mile odometer of my beater 1996 Chevy Lumina and marvel at the engine running perfectly, having never been apart, delivering close to 30 mpg running around town, and using barely a pint of oil between 3,000-mile changes.)

Now if you guys will excuse me, Co-Promoter Dan Jensen of The Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Race just this morning forwarded the spread sheet containing The Official Results of the 2011 event, so I have to begin work to report the hopelessly-outdated technology showcased therein, for the January 2012 Turning Wheels.

<GGG> BP

showbizkid
09-28-2011, 11:58 AM
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q26/clarknovak/FireExtinguisherTraining.jpg

Move along citizens, nothing to see here.

8E45E
09-28-2011, 12:08 PM
Back to my Post #17, Craig...and Nels' Post #9.

To repeat, my <GGG> in the original post should have served as a freindly flag that this thread was opened for tongue-in-cheek fun, not a launching point for everyone's erudite knowledge of 1964 Studebakers not being up to 2011 automobile technology standards.

Sorry Bob, if I implied it was just R3 engines alone. I should have clarified by including Ford's 427 Thunderbolts, Mopar's 426 Stage 3 Hemi's, et al. from 1964. I'm referring to ANY engine with the 'wild' cam such as a 276 or 288 degrees. VVT eliminates the idle and low rev. problems associated with stop & go traffic. And fuel injection thereby elimates flooding, and hot and cold starting issues.

Craig

BobPalma
09-28-2011, 12:11 PM
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q26/clarknovak/FireExtinguisherTraining.jpg

Move along citizens, nothing to see here.

Funny, Clark; very funny! Thanks...I think... <GGG> BP

BobPalma
09-28-2011, 12:16 PM
Sorry Bob, if I implied it was just R3 engines. I should have clarified by including Ford's 427 Thunderbolts, Mopar's 426 Stage 3 Hemi's, et al. from 1964. I'm referring to ANY engine with the 'wild' cam such as a 276 or 288 deg. VVT eliminates the idle and low rev. problems associated with stop & go traffic. And fuel injection thereby elimates flooding, and hot and cold starting issues. Craig

Ironically, Craig, I've always been impressed with how docile George's R3 has been, even with the 288-degree cam.

Honestly, it sits there and idles relatively low and smooth, as if it could idle all day as a stationary engine. (Sure, that's a bit of an exagerration as to all day, but it is surprising. Perhaps Ted will post.)

I think that is one reason why I (and others, of course) have so much respect for what Granatelli and Studebaker engineers did with the R3; its low-speed manners truly belie its power and potential. BP

kmac530
09-28-2011, 12:20 PM
1/4 mile times go up exponentially as the times go down. I have found to go from 16 seconds to 15 may only take a few hundred dollars, but to go to 14s is quite a few hundred bucks and 13s is at least a thousand dollars, 12s.... it used to $1000.00 per second but that grows by the second. To get into the 10s takes THOUSANDS of dollars in most cases now.
We say in boats after 60 mph it is a grand per 5 mph. Again I find that grows exponentially.

R3 challenger
09-28-2011, 12:30 PM
I've owned four R3 engines with the 276 degree cam, and I drove one as a daily driver for several years...in fact, it was only daily driver. It idled smoothly (as did all four of those engines), ran very strong, and started easily in all weather. In fact, I lived in Winnipeg, Canada, during one of those years, and the R3 sat outside in 25-35 below weather. (That's degrees farenheit). The R3 operated normally and well that entire winter.

Our mutual Studebaker interest is a hobby; it is not something that requires critical comment when someone gets enthusiastic about a harmless element of that hobby. To be critical or negative in such a situation may indicate a certain lack of courtesy and perhaps some insensitivity. Being critical also serves to call attention to oneself, not the most attractive trait. Let's enjoy this stuff, OK?

George

8E45E
09-28-2011, 01:27 PM
Ironically, Craig, I've always been impressed with how docile George's R3 has been, even with the 288-degree cam.

Honestly, it sits there and idles relatively low and smooth, as if it could idle all day as a stationary engine. (Sure, that's a bit of an exagerration as to all day, but it is surprising. Perhaps Ted will post.)

I think that is one reason why I (and others, of course) have so much respect for what Granatelli and Studebaker engineers did with the R3; its low-speed manners truly belie its power and potential. BP

http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?53771-The-Lamberti-papers-10&highlight=lamberti

The recent postings of the Lamberti papers confirm it was'docile enough for street use', but the boardroom debate still went on about it. Can you imagine getting counseled by your salesman HOW to drive your car?? :)

Craig

JDP
09-28-2011, 02:04 PM
http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?53771-The-Lamberti-papers-10&highlight=lamberti

The recent postings of the Lamberti papers confirm it was'docile enough for street use', but the boardroom debate still went on about it. Can you imagine getting counseled by your salesman HOW to drive your car?? :)

Craig

The Nisson GT-R has a unique way of switching from street to race car without the dealer instructions. It is speed limited in normal use, but the GPS knows if you are at a race track and changes the computer program to lift all limits.

:The new Nissan GT-R (http://www.motorauthority.com/overview/nissan_gt-r_2009) will be limited to 180km/h in the land of the rising sun. The rather low-speed limit has been the source of some derision of the GT-R, although it is expected that in North-America and Europe the limit will be set at a more respectable 250km/h.

It’s not all bad news for the Japanese though. Through some clever use of already existing technology, the Japanese version of the GT-R has its 180km/h limit lifted when it enters a domestic (ie. Japanese) circuit. The inbuilt GPS system recognizes when the car has entered the circuit and sends a signal to the ECU to disable the limiter."

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic: Arthur C Clark

Bob Andrews
09-28-2011, 02:51 PM
Really though, John, who cares about some 'Nisson'?? I'm just not seeing the point of campaigning for it on this forum. I'm sure there's a ricer forum where some kids that don't appreciate buying Amercan brands would drool over it;)

Me, I'll take the Wrapper. She's interesting, unique, not plummeting in value, and as a Patriot I don't have to be ashamed of being seen in it:)

comatus
09-28-2011, 02:58 PM
...I don't have to be ashamed of being seen in it.

Yeah? [Eliot Ness voice] Well...you're not from South Bend.

Bob Andrews
09-28-2011, 03:11 PM
...I don't have to be ashamed of being seen in it.

Yeah? [Eliot Ness voice] Well...you're not from South Bend.

I am in my heart! When I'm thinking about Studebakers. Sometimes.

JDP
09-28-2011, 03:40 PM
Really though, John, who cares about some 'Nisson'?? I'm just not seeing the point of campaigning for it on this forum. I'm sure there's a ricer forum where some kids that don't appreciate buying Amercan brands would drool over it;)

Me, I'll take the Wrapper. She's interesting, unique, not plummeting in value, and as a Patriot I don't have to be ashamed of being seen in it:)


I don't feel the obligation to defend my thought process when I post, but I'll make a exception for you. The first post featured a video of the GT-R and other cars had a tongue in cheek comment about 50 years of advances. Since I'm a car nut, not just a Studebaker car nut I spun off to a discussion of modern iron and some of the cool features. I'll never own a 400K Lexus, nor even a GT-R, but modern supercars interest me, so I talk about them. BTW, I'm not leaving for a "ricer forum", unless we can't mention other interesting cars, especially if they were bought up on the first post in this thread.

BTW, that Patriot comment was below the belt, as a retired Navy Chief, I'm not ashamed to drive the car of my choice, currently a Mercedes build by our enemy of over some half century ago.

Bob Andrews
09-28-2011, 04:03 PM
John, my point was, at least in my eyes the thread was about promoting the amazing accomplishment of the PBR here on a Studebaker forum, and it seemed odd to see several posts expounding the virtues of some foreign non-Stude. To me, the effect was to say "big deal about that old oddball, look what REAL cars can do today!" Just seemed way out of place here; more what one would expect to read on a Nissan forum, if there is such a thing; I'll never know.

As has been mentioned, no one's disputing the advances of modern cars. My take on Bob's post was to make a joke about technology, not really to compare them. I may be wrong.

I don't know why mentioning I'm a Patriot was 'below the belt'- I'm just saying I am and didn't mention your name, or anyone else's, as not being one. And that there's no way I'll ever drive a car without an American brand name. But we've been over that subject many times in the past:)

31Streetrod
09-28-2011, 04:57 PM
Hey, Bob Andrews, Why don't you apply for the position of forum moderator and then you will be able to delete any post in any thread that has content that you may not agree with. :)

Bob Andrews
09-28-2011, 05:06 PM
Hey, Bob Andrews, Why don't you apply for the position of forum moderator and then you will be able to delete any post in any thread that has content that you may not agree with. :)

I would never do that. I never agree with censoring anybody's post, whether it's right or wrong; others do that, not me.

StudeDave57
09-28-2011, 05:10 PM
Well- hasn't this been an entertaining thread? I'd join in, but I'm still trying to figure out the Stude connection to all those new cars... :confused:

31Streetrod
09-28-2011, 05:13 PM
I would never do that. I never agree with censoring anybody's post, whether it's right or wrong; others do that, not me.

Who decides if a post is right or wrong?

Bob Andrews
09-28-2011, 05:19 PM
Who decides if a post is right or wrong?

The reader.

Chicken Hawk
09-28-2011, 05:23 PM
I guess there's still a supply of ice water.

Ted

clonelark
09-29-2011, 04:16 AM
One more thing the wrapper did these car still have a challenge to do, survive over 47 years and still be able to run as fast or faster than when new. I wont be here to see it but maybe the younger guys will.

BobPalma
09-29-2011, 06:55 AM
One more thing the 'Wrapper did these cars still have a challenge to do, survive over 47 years and still be able to run as fast or faster than when new. I wont be here to see it but maybe the younger guys will.

True, Bob, and it's closing in on 48 years: The Plain Brown Wrapper was built December 12, 1963.

And as you see from George's posts here, it wasn't exactly squirreled away immediately after purchase as a collector car to be preserved, either: It got 14,000+ miles put on it in some daily service, even with the R3 engine that we installed in January, 1965. BP

Cash
09-29-2011, 01:05 PM
On top of what John pointed out, also consider the actual production numbers of the PBW type cars (1?). Add the fact that these cars were probably driven to the track and back home or wherever, and that they were running on an airport runway versus a prepared drag strip and the comparison fades a little more. As impressive as the Wrapper is, modern technology definitely has the edge. Still an interesting observation.

Pat
Yep, modern technology is great as long as you have the tools/equipment to diagnose and or repair a new car. Oh yeah, cubic money is good too.
I have limited skills, yet I have done quite a bit of work on my Hawk both on my own and with a little help, and so far I have been successful. All I can do on my Focus is plugs, maybe a coil, filters and maintainence.
I don't even enjoy putting an air filter in my wife's Acura....

Cash
09-29-2011, 01:25 PM
One more thing the wrapper did these car still have a challenge to do, survive over 47 years and still be able to run as fast or faster than when new. I wont be here to see it but maybe the younger guys will.

And it has a little character...soul if you will. People smile when they see it..ask questions, learn something. It was built by flesh and blood PEOPLE, not a robot, and it's survived for 47 years.
No, it's not as safe, fast,sexy, as a new car, but it's a Studebaker, and it's got heart. MOST of the cars from that era had SOME personality..
I had a girlfriend some years ago that reminded me of a new car..fast, sexy, strong, smart...and all the heart of a refrigerator..

showbizkid
09-29-2011, 05:55 PM
I had a girlfriend some years ago that reminded me of a new car..fast, sexy, strong, smart...and all the heart of a refrigerator..

Ding ding ding ding!!! We have a winner! :)

BobPalma
09-29-2011, 06:25 PM
Ding ding ding ding!!! We have a winner! :)

Actually, Clark; I thought Cash's remark, there, would draw Johnny Wiffer into the discussion. ('Prolly hasn't seen it yet.) <GGG> BP

comatus
09-29-2011, 07:48 PM
and all the heart of a refrigerator..
Did you check to see if her light stayed on after you closed the door? That always bothered me.

[Joh-nee...y'out there?]

8E45E
09-29-2011, 10:15 PM
The Rolling Stones comes to mind!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mervA5pFyXk

Craig

R3 challenger
09-30-2011, 12:33 PM
I've never had more enjoyable transportation than when I drove a genuine R3 for daily transportation in the mid-1970s. In fact, when I got my first full-time symphony orchestra job in 1974, I drove that car (a '64 2-door Commander 4-speed with a real R3-it was a clone of the Wrapper) cross-country from the Chicago area to Victoria, B.C. It ran flawlessly and, with a 3.54 axle ratio, averaged just over 16 mpg for the trip. That was my only daily transportation car for several years, and it was so much fun, I've recently recreated the powertrain for my driver '60 Lark.

Well, I'm off to the Nissan Forum to talk about Studes.......

George

crashnzuk
09-30-2011, 01:01 PM
Well- hasn't this been an entertaining thread? I'd join in, but I'm still trying to figure out the Stude connection to all those new cars... :confused:

Being a true car guy, the OP saw the video and said "Hell, my old Stude can hold off a few of them new fangled cars" and decided to post about it. I see no problem with this.
Travis..

rodnutrandy
10-01-2011, 08:29 PM
I think the main point is missed. I have a streetrod pickup with a low compression 350. it sounds good and cruises nice. I also have a Grand Cherokee with a hemi. the Jeep is faster and better milage than the truck,BUT no one comes up to me every time I stop to talk about my Jeep, But they will when I am in my truck. The brown wrapper draws that attention and also surprises everyone (me included) with the fast times it turns. My hats off to the car and really enjoy hearing of its running. I hear of mustangs ruuning as fast with a nitrous bottle, but to see a Studebaker run that fast in a pure stock class is a rare treat! Keep the updates coming!

StudeDave57
10-01-2011, 09:09 PM
Being a true car guy, the OP saw the video and said "Hell, my old Stude can hold off a few of them new fangled cars" and decided to post about it. I see no problem with this. Travis..
I don't see a problem with it either-- what I was getting at is the fact that it's not DIRECTLY Stude Related, and therefore was posted in the wrong Forum. This Forum is for Studebaker specific topics- even says so on the main Forum page. The Stove Huggers Forum is for non-Stude specific topics~ so I've heard in the past.

BTW- BP doesn't own the Wrapper- his cousin does... :rolleyes:


StudeDave '57 :cool:
not mad- just confused

R3 challenger
10-01-2011, 09:16 PM
Hey, Bob, let's get that nitrous bottle out of the Wrapper's front crossover before anyone finds it. <GGG>

George

BobPalma
10-01-2011, 09:19 PM
Hey, Bob, let's get that nitrous bottle out of the Wrapper's front crossover before anyone finds it. <GGG> George

If you say so, George. I was more concerned about them putting a magnet to that aluminum front clip. BP

StudeDave57
10-01-2011, 09:37 PM
Hey, Bob, let's get that nitrous bottle out of the Wrapper's front crossover before anyone finds it. <GGG> George
Busted!!!! Wouldn't it have been better to hide it inside the gas tank for better weight transfer? That's where I would'a put it- run the line inside the BIG 'R3 only' fuel line and it'd never be found.
(they were bigger lines, right?) {wink, wink}



If you say so, George. I was more concerned about them putting a magnet to that aluminum front clip. BP
Also a good idea- but wasn't that expensive? Oh, wait- StudeFolks would've paid a fortune for those, eh? How many sets did you sell? ;)
Rustproofing done right~ aluminum!!!!

R3 challenger
10-01-2011, 11:26 PM
The latest Pure Stock Drag rules ban two things that were legitimate factory R3 items: Electronic ignition boxes (transistor ign. was standard on every R3) and electric fuel pumps. Anyone could have ordered an electric fuel pump on an R3 (PN 1560608). I ran this past Dan Jensen, organizer of the Pure Stock Drags, and he said "No". I didn't push the issue since the stock R2/R3 fuel pump seems to do the job just fine.

Studebaker was ahead of just about everybody else in offering these items, but I don't want to use them and cause other competitors to think we are getting away with something, even though they were legitimate R3 items. Especially when it runs well without them.

As for ignition, the Wrapper posted a 12.66/114 on a standard set of dual points....no transistor ignition or other electronic aids. It's almost worth doing without these things just for bragging rights. <GGG>

George

JDP
10-01-2011, 11:43 PM
The latest Pure Stock Drag rules ban two things that were legitimate factory R3 items: Electronic ignition boxes (transistor ign. was standard on every R3) and electric fuel pumps. Anyone could have ordered an electric fuel pump on an R3 (PN 1560608). I ran this past Dan Jensen, organizer of the Pure Stock Drags, and he said "No". I didn't push the issue since the stock R2/R3 fuel pump seems to do the job just fine.

Studebaker was ahead of just about everybody else in offering these items, but I don't want to use them and cause other competitors to think we are getting away with something, even though they were legitimate R3 items. Especially when it runs well without them.

As for ignition, the Wrapper posted a 12.66/114 on a standard set of dual points....no transistor ignition or other electronic aids. It's almost worth doing without these things just for bragging rights. <GGG>

George

That seems a odd rule since the MOPAR Hemi's used the same Prestolite box, but I get not fighting over it.

Bish
10-02-2011, 07:48 AM
Yes: the new stuff is more pleasant to drive (most of the time); but, the Old School vehicles def receive a lot more thumbs-ups! :D

And on a more pragmatic note: I'm rather tall and the ergonomics of many current production vehicles 'suck', to be polite.

Since when is using the word "suck" polite?

Bob Andrews
10-02-2011, 07:57 AM
Apropos to the original post (about Chevy but the writer is on the same page):

http://www.chevyhardcore.com/news/the-original-zl1-camaro-could-teach-the-new-guy-a-thing-or-two/

R2Andrea
10-02-2011, 03:57 PM
From the 2011 PSMCDR rule book Ignition System: The ignition system must be stock, including the distributor, cap, coil, and wires. Points may be replaced with any electronic conversion that fits under the stock distributor cap. Replacement coils are allowed as long as they are the correct shape, color, and size. Coils must be mounted in the correct location with correct brackets for the make, year, and engine combination. We will no longer allow the use of aftermarket ignition boxes like MSD, Crane, Jacobs, etc. We made this decision based on participants using these ignition boxes for traction and total timing manipulation while making runs. You will be allowed to use a rev limiter, but the unit must be only a rev limiter and nothing else. Spark plug wires must be of correct appearance in size and color for the vehicle.

Perhaps Dan Jensen didn't understand that the Transignitor IS the only STOCK ignition system for the R3 and R4 engines as well as being factory optional for the R1 and R2 engines? The service parts are plainly listed in both the Avanti Parts Catalog and in the green section of the '59 to '64 Chassis Parts Catalog. While Chrysler did use the Transignitor, it was (IIRC) only standard on the Race Hemi. And the cars that were available with the Race Hemi are not eligible to run at the PSMCDR anyway.* I also have to wonder if the Chevy K66 transistor ignition is also ineligible for use at the PSMCDR as well. The K66 setup was optional, if not standard, on a number of both big block and small block performance engines from 1964 untill the advent of the HEI ignition system. Have they been banned as well?
I can see the electric fuel pump being disallowed since it shows of in neither the Parts Catalog nor the Car Order Guide. Rather like the supercharger cooling system perhaps? Or the never released Carb U Meter?

* A question for Bob P- was the Prestolite Transignitor standard or optional on any of the PSMCDR legal Mopars? Inquiring minds and all that........

BobPalma
10-02-2011, 07:55 PM
Andy: I cannot answer that question.

However, I know who can: Our SDC member Frank Remlinger, owner of the pretty B5 Blue 1969 Dart GTS 340/Torqueflite that competes at the event.

Frank posts here fairly often, so I am e-mailing him and asking him to look at your Post #71, here, and answer to the best of his knowledge. BP

JDP
10-02-2011, 08:23 PM
Andy: I cannot answer that question.

However, I know who can: Our SDC member Frank Remlinger, owner of the pretty B5 Blue 1969 Dart GTS 340/Torqueflite that competes at the event.

Frank posts here fairly often, so I am e-mailing him and asking him to look at your Post #71, here, and answer to the best of his knowledge. BP


I'd love the definitive answer, but I've sold a few Transignitor's to MOPAR guys that swore they needed it to build a correct clone HEMI. I was under the impression a blue Transignitor and blue coil were stock on many production MOPAR's.

R3 challenger
10-02-2011, 09:20 PM
You're right, Andy....the electric fuel pump is not listed in the standard Avanti parts catalog. However, it is listed in the Studebaker engineering parts list for the Avanti dated 4-27-63; Andy Beckman at the musum made a copy of the page that lists the electric pump, and I have it in front of me. The electric pump is also mentioned in several other factory sources, the AMA R3 factory specs (11-15-62), and in contemporary road tests, such as the January, '64, Hot Rod Magazine test of an R3 Daytona hardtop.

But your point is well-taken: The Pure Stock Drags rules make it clear that special dealer installed items and race-only parts are not allowed. The electric pump offered as an R3 option is in a gray area, where it was clearly optional, but known, for the most part, only to racers (and almost none of them). <GGG>

George

R2Andrea
10-02-2011, 11:15 PM
they needed it to build a correct clone HEMI. I was under the impression a blue Transignitor and blue coil were stock on many production MOPAR's.
Most of the few Mopars(and they were Race Hemis) I've seen with the Transignitor used the black heatsinks. The blue blue units were later. I don't ever remember seeing a Street Hemi that had a factory installed Transignitor. The Prestolite ignition was replaced by the Mopar transistor ignition which used control boxes with different colored cases depending on the year and application.

You're right, Andy....the electric fuel pump is not listed in the standard Avanti parts catalog. However, it is listed in the Studebaker engineering parts list for the Avanti dated 4-27-63; Andy Beckman at the musum made a copy of the page that lists the electric pump, and I have it in front of me. The electric pump is also mentioned in several other factory sources, the AMA R3 factory specs (11-15-62), and in contemporary road tests, such as the January, '64, Hot Rod Magazine test of an R3 Daytona hardtop.

George, I don't have a copy of the AMA specs, but the only places I believe the part number shows up is in the 63R-Q parts list (with the 4-27-63 date you mentioned above) and the 64R-Q Parts List. I also have the blueprint for the pump, but I've just never gotten my hands on the pump itself. Yet. There are several interesting things things of note in regard to the electric fuel pump. There are no additions to the Parts list that reflect changes in the fuel lines for the electric pump and there is no adaptation drawing listed that would show how and where it was installed. It was also only listed as being for the R3 engine.This applies to the 63R-Q book, I'm not sure if the info was added to the 64R-Q edition. The electric pump also dosen't show up in the R3 and R4 section of the '64 Lark/Hawk Parts List.

fastfritz
10-03-2011, 09:04 AM
Andy: I cannot answer that question.

However, I know who can: Our SDC member Frank Remlinger, owner of the pretty B5 Blue 1969 Dart GTS 340/Torqueflite that competes at the event.

Frank posts here fairly often, so I am e-mailing him and asking him to look at your Post #71, here, and answer to the best of his knowledge. BP

You learn something new everyday............ I had thought that this was a over the counter addition. I went over to Moparts to find that R2Andy was already poking around over there:

http://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=QuestionAnswer&Number=6488390&Searchpage=1&Main=6482546&Words=+Aero426&topic=&Search=true

If this was "Stock" then it appears to have only been on the RACE 426 Hemi and 413/426 Super Stock cars. This was not a standard Mopar street ignition set-up.

R3 challenger
10-03-2011, 11:18 AM
Frank, what was the first year that Mopar used a Transignitor type electronic ignition for any application? The first production Studebaker with one was a late '63 R2 Avanti.

Andy, Nelson's '64 R3 Daytona HT-the Hot Rod test car-has an electric pump, probably installed by Paxton Products. I believe that car was built as an R2, IIRC, and converted by Paxton to R3 power as a prototype R3 installation.

George

R2Andrea
10-03-2011, 09:30 PM
Andy, Nelson's '64 R3 Daytona HT-the Hot Rod test car-has an electric pump, probably installed by Paxton Products. I believe that car was built as an R2, IIRC, and converted by Paxton to R3 power as a prototype R3 installation.

George
I don't remember if Paxton put the pump on that car of if the original owner did. I'll have to ask Nels and see if he knows and who the manufacturer was.

R3 challenger
10-04-2011, 11:35 AM
Good point, Andy. There's a good chance the electric pump was installed on the R3 Daytona by Paxton. Take a look at the bottom photo of page 31 of the R3 Daytona road test in the January, 1964, Hot Rod Magazine. One can clearly see an in-line fuel pressure regulator, a good indication that the car had an electric fuel pump. Nels has said the pump is still on the car and is a high grade (expensive) aircraft type pump.

George

George

mbstude
10-04-2011, 11:43 AM
Just for clarity, isn't the Hot Rod Magazine Daytona an R4?

BobPalma
10-04-2011, 12:26 PM
Just for clarity, isn't the Hot Rod Magazine Daytona an R4?

No, Matt; it isn't.

You're probably thinking of the Gene Booth R4 Daytona built for Car Life magazine, where Booth was Editor (or writer or some form of contributor).

The R3 Daytona in Nels' possession was road-tested in the January 1964 Hot Rod magazine. In my opinion, that writing is probably the best-ever commercial article prepared on R3 Studebakers in the day; well-done, complimentary, informative.

If you're at a swap meet and see a January 1964 Hot Rod in a stack of magazines for a couple bucks, you'd do well to buy it.

Then, should you ever tour The Nelson Bove Museum of High Performance Studebakers, you can touch and feel the actual car. BP

mbstude
10-04-2011, 12:33 PM
Thanks, BP. I wasn't aware of that car. Thanks for the facts!

nels
10-04-2011, 09:57 PM
The Hot Rod road test R3 Daytona was built as an R2 pkg car then shipped to Paxton for the modifications. The engine, trans and rear end were probably installed at Paxton not SB engineering. The car does have the original electric fuel pump with the correct model # per print. I don't remember the pump manuf now but it is an aircraft type pump. The pump is mounted below the battery and inside the eng compartment. It does have different fuel delivery line from the tank. It also has a recirculating oil system for the Paxton with the holding tank mounted under and toward the lower front of the passenger front fender. The fresh air induction system is an improved version over the R3 blue Commander 64v19588. The front suspenion is still standard with no hd ctrl arm bushings. The exhaust headers are Jardine(sp) tube headers special built for Studebaker and Paxton. I'm not sure if the headers were on during the early part of the road test, I don't think so, but they were on when the car was run at Bonneville during the later part of the test. The car is a nice piece of history as it is pretty darn original. It even has the carbumeter under the dash. It also has oddities like external headliner braces to keep the head liner from coming down at speed and the drive shaft loop required at Bonneville.


Frank, what was the first year that Mopar used a Transignitor type electronic ignition for any application? The first production Studebaker with one was a late '63 R2 Avanti.

Andy, Nelson's '64 R3 Daytona HT-the Hot Rod test car-has an electric pump, probably installed by Paxton Products. I believe that car was built as an R2, IIRC, and converted by Paxton to R3 power as a prototype R3 installation.

George

Bob Andrews
10-04-2011, 10:12 PM
The R3 Daytona in Nels' possession was road-tested in the January 1964 Hot Rod magazine. In my opinion, that writing is probably the best-ever commercial article prepared on R3 Studebakers in the day; well-done, complimentary, informative.

If you're at a swap meet and see a January 1964 Hot Rod in a stack of magazines for a couple bucks, you'd do well to buy it.



Cool. Just went to eBay and bought a copy. Looking forward to seeing that article!

(FWIW, there are 5 more of them currently listed).

R2Andrea
10-05-2011, 05:52 PM
"I don't remember the pump manuf now but it is an aircraft type pump." It IS an aircraft fuel pump. The reason I haven't acquired any for my stash is cost, The correct version is usually listed as NLA and similar rebuilt units run between $950.00 to $1450.00 with a $400.00 core charge. Sometimes the cost for correctness hurts. lol