Can anyone list five reasons the '57-'58 Golden Hawk style supercharger system was 'superior' to
the '63-'64 Lark-Hawk style top mount system?
the '63-'64 Lark-Hawk style top mount system?
-
-
This one is harder...........here are some SWAGs:
1) Variable ratio drive
2) No problematic accelerator pump seal like the R2 carb
3) GH supercharger system was standard while the R2 was an extra cost option on the Larks/Hawks
4) Better gas mileage (really reaching on this one.......)
5) Studebaker listed its horsepower so it wasn't penalized in drag racing classes, unlike the '63/'64 version for which Studebaker was very slow to release the HP rating and cause the R2 to have to run in a 'higher' classPaul
Winston-Salem, NC
Visit The Studebaker Skytop Registry website at: www.studebakerskytop.com
Check out my YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/user/r1lark -
To; r1lark,------ I had the fuel mileage bit too!.....Your answers are all 'good' on this question, but two more that I had were....A pressurized carb is 'happier' inside of a sealed aluminum air box than with a 'bonnet fastened to it's air horn.
(I didn't use the word 'safer' because I went down that path before, and I know some folks would disagree with that comment). You actually touched on this with Your second (#2) improvement.
Also, the vari-speed pulley used on the VS really is a better deal.....the SN has a 'compromise' ratio fixed pulley, whereas the VS has a pulley that can be 'ALL IN' or 'ALL OUT'. Whatever the situation demands..ingenious really! Your improvement
#1 touched on this. WELL DONE!!Comment
Comment