PDA

View Full Version : Could a Studebaker have won a championship



bridgegaurd
09-17-2012, 05:37 PM
I was watching the NASCAR review show today. And the question of Dodge leaving NASCAR,
even if they won the championship. And the remaining effort to do so. And Larry Mac said
it wouldn't matter if it was a Studebaker a team in the chase would try, no matter what.
(i probably don't have that quote completely right, as it's from memory)

So my question is, under NASCAR rules during the period of manufacturer. With the body, weight, running gear and wheelbase, being what it was at that time. And the naturally aspirated engines available. Could Studebaker realistically have been competitive? And possibly have won a championship.

Chris_Dresbach
09-17-2012, 06:34 PM
What years are we talking here? During the '50s I would say yes, in fact a few Studebaker's even ran in Nascar and I know at least one ran in the Daytona 500. I wish Studebaker would have ran a race team in the '60s because I think something like an R3 Challenger (like the PBR but set up for circle track racing) could have gave Richard Petty a run for his money.

SN-60
09-17-2012, 07:07 PM
To: bridgegaurd,----- It would have been neat to see Studebaker compete back then (for sure!) but the only engines they had that would have had a chance against the 400 plus cubic inch
competition were supercharged.....and I believe the NASCAR rules forbade blowers.

rockne10
09-17-2012, 08:18 PM
I believe Frank Mundy won three NASCAR races behind the wheel of a '51 Commander Starlight. Started at least one of them from the pole.

http://www.classiccar.com/forum/discussion/154240/nascar-1951-studebaker-record/p1

Chris_Dresbach
09-17-2012, 10:20 PM
To: bridgegaurd,----- It would have been neat to see Studebaker compete back then (for sure!) but the only engines they had that would have had a chance against the 400 plus cubic inch
competition were supercharged.....and I believe the NASCAR rules forbade blowers.

There was always the R4, that would have beed legal I would guess?

SN-60
09-17-2012, 11:12 PM
To: Chris Dresbach,----The R4 was rated at 280 HP. I have no idea what it really produced (Maybe 350HP?). But that's no where near the power levels of a 426 CI Dodge-Plymouth or a 427 CI Ford
or Chevrolet. The R3 would have got them much closer, but once again it had the supercharger. If a supercharger were legal in NASCAR, the model that Studebaker probably would have used was their
GT Hawk,....which just may have had better aerodynamics then the full size Fords, Chevys, and Dodge-Plymouths.

PackardV8
09-17-2012, 11:27 PM
Remember, Studebaker's little V8 didn't have a ghost of a chance of playing with the big boys without an equilizer; that's why they used a supercharger. The problem with the Paxton is it wouldn't have a hope of lasting 500 miles at full boost, even if NASCAR had a handicap factor allowing small V8s to use it. If anyone doubts that it wouldn't last, check out the PSMCDrag report. Ted and George were changing blower belts after 1/4-mile runs.

jack vines

Jessie J.
09-18-2012, 09:40 AM
So my question is, under NASCAR rules during the period of manufacturer. With the body, weight, running gear and wheelbase, being what it was at that time. And the naturally aspirated engines available. Could Studebaker realistically have been competitive? And possibly have won a championship.
Maybe in the '55-'57 period with the 289 while Chevy and Ford were stiil competing with their small displacement egines.
Even at that time the Stude V-8 could have been easily expanded to beyond 300 cu. in. (I recall a '60's artical that stated that the engines basic archetecture, with a few core changes would have allowed for over 400 inches) And real 'power pack' large port heads could have been introduced at any time Studebaker had so desired.
But biggest the problem with this was that Studebaker's upper managment of those days had much more 'enthusiasim' for promoting 'Economy Runs' than going out and ripping up the competition on the nations race tracks.
With very few exceptions, most of the Studebaker's of the 50's were promoted, produced, and publicly percieved by the buying public as practical 'economy cars'. In other words, vehicles suited to grampa's and grandma's, retired school marms, and as a teenage girls first car.

It didn't at all have to be that way. Sticking in the 289 didn't cost significantly more than the virtually identical 259. The police 'Marshall' V-8 option of the '56-'57 period was what should have been out on the tracks and going into the highest percentage of their sedan production in that emerging post-war 'youth' market.
The 'old folks' would have bought it, if it had been standard and on the lots, as they certainly proved by abandoning Studebaker products in droves, and buying the competitors ever increasing larger and more powerful engines and flashier models.
At that time, an available 'tri-power' or 'dual-quad' and finned aluminum valve cover option would have been very cheap 'bang for the buck' in entirely altering public perceptions of the Company's products. Seems every major Auto manufacturer -except- Studebaker (and Rambler) had figured that out.
_It wasn't needed for engine power. It was needed for marketplace power.
The antique and wimpy Champion flathead 6 as the base HAWK engine? What the HE double hockey sticks were they thinking of???
All it ever did was dilute the Hawk name and image, and to a great degree confirm to anyone who ever drove one, that a Studebaker Hawk was NOT a performance or luxury car, nor a viable Studebaker answer to the T-birds or Impala's of the day.

In the end, it was Studebaker's management that chose their market, that chose what types of vehicles they would produce, and how they were equipped, priced, and marketed.
The demise of their Automotive business was the result of a lot of short-sighted and bad business decisions that diluted the Companies prestiege, and for which no one else was responsible.

trnstrtrk
09-18-2012, 09:59 AM
I was watching the NASCAR review show today. And the question of Dodge leaving NASCAR,
even if they won the championship. And the remaining effort to do so. And Larry Mac said
it wouldn't matter if it was a Studebaker a team in the chase would try, no matter what.
(i probably don't have that quote completely right, as it's from memory)

So my question is, under NASCAR rules during the period of manufacturer. With the body, weight, running gear and wheelbase, being what it was at that time. And the naturally aspirated engines available. Could Studebaker realistically have been competitive? And possibly have won a championship.

Frank Mundy finished 5th in NASCAR points in the 1951 season. Two of his three wins that year came behind the wheel of the #23 Studebaker Commander owned by W. Perry Smith, the Studebaker dealer in Columbia, SC. Had Perry Smith not lost his life in his airplane crash in December 1951 the 1952 racing season effort likely would have been even more potent and successful.

bridgegaurd
09-18-2012, 11:03 AM
Maybe in the '55-'57 period with the 289 while Chevy and Ford were stiil competing with their small displacement egines.
So the answer would be yes, especially during that time period. And with a a few good parts, from the factory and someone at the home office, to see the value of speed performance advertisement. By the time AMC found it, bad decisions, a gas crisis,and the loss of product control to Renault, doomed the company and the program.

studegary
09-18-2012, 02:48 PM
It didn't at all have to be that way. Sticking in the 289 didn't cost significantly more than the virtually identical 259. The police 'Marshall' V-8 option of the '56-'57 period was what should have been out on the tracks and going into the highest percentage of their sedan production in that emerging post-war 'youth' market.

.

The 289 was available in sedans in 1956-1957. In fact, the four barrel version of the 289 was standard equipment in the President Classic.

BobPalma
09-18-2012, 03:13 PM
Remember, Studebaker's little V8 didn't have a ghost of a chance of playing with the big boys without an equalizer; that's why they used a supercharger. jack vines

Really? :woot:

At the 2012 Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Race, Steve Doerschlag ran 7 runs with his unsupercharged R1 Commander 2-door. He missed shifts on two of the runs, skewing an average unnecessarily.

If we take his five "normal" runs, they had an average ET of 14.606.

His competitor in the shootouts was a 1970 Malibu SS396, one of the big blocks from which unsupercharged Studebakers are supposed to shrink and flee in terror.:eek:

The Malibu's three shootout runs averaged 14.539.

Hmmm.....a 14.606 average versus a 14.539 average....and furthermore, Steve's best ET was 14.465, whereas the Malibu's best ET, at least in the shootouts, was 14.530.

That's a mighty small ghost. (Personally, I can't even "see" it.;)) BP

StudeDave57
09-18-2012, 03:27 PM
But don't NASCAR races last a little bit longer then 14 seconds??? :confused:

:ohmy: :rolleyes: :lol:




StudeDave '57 :cool:

BobPalma
09-18-2012, 04:04 PM
But don't NASCAR races last a little bit longer then 14 seconds??? :confused:
StudeDave '57 :cool:

Sure, Dave...but without a supercharger, the longevity of the supercharger or blower belts would not be an issue! :cool: BP

Chris_Dresbach
09-18-2012, 05:02 PM
Sure, Dave...but without a supercharger, the longevity of the supercharger or blower belts would not be an issue! :cool: BP



Use green industrial belts, trust me on why I know that trick... ;)
On a typical lawn tractor racing season I would tear up about 4 to 5 common black belts a year. This year I switched to green belts and a single one has lasted me the whole season!!

nels
09-18-2012, 06:07 PM
About changing blower belts: I think the Larks and Hawks and Avantis that were equipped with the R3 option all set records at Bonneville in many classes. One of those classes was, I think, 1000 km runs, and I am sure they were pretty much "balls to the wall" at all times. So, maybe Stude could have done well in a 500 mile event.

studebaker-R2-4-me
09-18-2012, 06:20 PM
Use green industrial belts, trust me on why I know that trick... ;)
On a typical lawn tractor racing season I would tear up about 4 to 5 common black belts a year. This year I switched to green belts and a single one has lasted me the whole season!!

The Green belt is the belt Ted uses... at least that is the belt that he loaned to me last year. Both Joe Flannery and I purchased them cheap off Amazon after we found out the size and style Ted was using. Joe was all about using a short belt, giving more wrap around the S/C pulley. I'm thinking that belt was in the $20, range while my local FLAPS wanted in excess of $45.

Allen

Allen

jnormanh
09-18-2012, 07:05 PM
Unlikely Studebaker could have been competitive with the top NASCAR teams. First off, Ford, GM and Chrysler all had engines which in "stock" configuration made lots more horsepower. Their cars were mostly more aerodynamic (swoopy and stylish aren't the same as aero), and mostly weighed less. They also had specialized chassis and bodies, and way more money to spend.

Even in the early days, 1949, Studebaker would have had to run against the OHV Olds 303 ci short stroke v8 with the relatively heavy 232 ci engine. By the time the Stude 259 was available, Ford had the 292 Y-block, and Chevy the short stroke 265, and by the time Studebaker had the 4-bbl 289, Chevy had the FI 283, and Ford the 285 HP 312.

And, of course there were the Chrysler Hemis starting at 331 ci from 1955.

If superchargers had been allowed? It would have been 304 ci Paxton vz Rootes blown Hemi.

So, given that Studebaker had no weight or suspension advantages, the answer has to be no.

Now if Studebaker *had* decided to spend the money to develop NASCAR specials, with high perf engines, aerodynamic sheet metal and lightweight cars with advanced suspensions.........

jnormanh
09-18-2012, 07:07 PM
At the 2012 Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Race, Steve Doerschlag ran 7 runs with his unsupercharged R1 Commander 2-door. He missed shifts on two of the runs, skewing an average unnecessarily.

If we take his five "normal" runs, they had an average ET of 14.606.

His competitor in the shootouts was a 1970 Malibu SS396, one of the big blocks from which unsupercharged Studebakers are supposed to shrink and flee in terror.

The Malibu's three shootout runs averaged 14.539.

Hmmm.....a 14.606 average versus a 14.539 average....and furthermore, Steve's best ET was 14.465, whereas the Malibu's best ET, at least in the shootouts, was 14.530.





1985 Ferrari Testarossa (courtesy of Packard53)

Weight 3,660 lbs.
Engine Flat 12 cylinder 302 cid, 380 hp @ 5,750 rpm, Torque 354 lbs. @ 4,500 rpm
0-30 2.2 seconds
0-50 4.2 seconds
0-60 5.3 seconds
0-70 6.6 seconds
0-80 8.4 seconds
0-100 12.2 seconds
0-110 14.9 seconds
1/4 mlie 13.6 seconds @ 105 mph
Top Speed 178 mph


You're claiming that a *stock* R1 Studebaker will run 1/4 miles within a second of a Ferrari Testarossa?

'scuse, me, but, as the saying goes: "I was born at night, but it wasn't LAST night."

Maybe an R1 will run mid 14s, but if do, it ain't stock.

BobPalma
09-18-2012, 07:28 PM
I doubt those 14 sec Studes come anywhere near NASCAR "stock".

Not sure what you mean by that snarky remarky, Jeff, but as raced in The Pure Stock Drags, R-engined Studebakers are a lot more "stock" than were NASCAR cars in the 1950s.

Even back then, NASCAR cars would have had tires and wheels too far from stock to be allowed at The Pure Stock Muscle Car Drags...and they had open exhaust, of course, whereas Pure Strockers must have oval mufflers (unless straight-throughs were stock, like Avantis) and tail pipes to the rear bumper, per stock.

Pure Stock drag racers don't have roll bars, nor are they allowed, as did NASCAR cars in the 1950s, which was a good idea, of course.

Doubt at your own peril, and check out the rules at The Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Race website if you want to know how the cars run at the event. BP

nels
09-18-2012, 07:54 PM
[QUOTE=jnormanh;681730]Unlikely Studebaker could have been competitive with the top NASCAR teams. First off, Ford, GM and Chrysler all had engines which in "stock" configuration made lots more horsepower. Their cars were mostly more aerodynamic (swoopy and stylish aren't the same as aero), and mostly weighed less. They also had specialized chassis and bodies, and way more money to spend.

The one thing that is very true as jnormanh points out, the "big three" did have way more money to spend. That alone is a HUGE obsticle. As for the Ferrari Testarossa at 13.6 and 105 mph, that is probably a little optomistic other than the road test prepared cars.

BobPalma
09-18-2012, 08:00 PM
Unlikely Studebaker could have been competitive with the top NASCAR teams. First off, Ford, GM and Chrysler all had engines which in "stock" configuration made lots more horsepower. Their cars were mostly more aerodynamic (swoopy and stylish aren't the same as aero), and mostly weighed less. They also had specialized chassis and bodies, and way more money to spend.

Even in the early days, 1949, Studebaker would have had to run against the OHV Olds 303 ci short stroke v8 with the relatively heavy 232 ci engine. By the time the Stude 259 was available, Ford had the 292 Y-block, and Chevy the short stroke 265, and by the time Studebaker had the 4-bbl 289, Chevy had the FI 283, and Ford the 285 HP 312.

And, of course there were the Chrysler Hemis starting at 331 ci from 1955.

If superchargers had been allowed? It would have been 304 ci Paxton vz Rootes blown Hemi.

So, given that Studebaker had no weight or suspension advantages, the answer has to be no.

Now if Studebaker *had* decided to spend the money to develop NASCAR specials, with high perf engines, aerodynamic sheet metal and lightweight cars with advanced suspensions.........

Boy, it's gonna be a long evening if I have to counter everything in that post. So here's a few:

1. The Chrysler Hemi had 331 CID from the get-go in 1951, not 1955.

2. Studebaker's 4bbl 289 was available in 1956. The highest-horsepower 312 Ford in 1956 was the dual-quad 312 at 260 HP, although some sources say 265, but not 285. (When did Ford have a 285 HP 312, for that matter? The supercharged 1957 engine was rated at an even 300 HP. The 1956 Lincoln had a 368 CID engine rated at 285 HP, but it wasn't available in Fords and it wasn't 312 CID.)

3. Chevrolet's only V8 displacement in 1956 was 265. The 283, with or without fuel injection, wasn't available until 1957, a year after Studebaker's 289. And if you check out Page 8 of the March 2010 Turning Wheels, you'll note Studebaker Engine Engineer Harold Johnson confirming Studebaker had proposed 310 CID V8s running on test stands in May 1956.

4. Early 1950s Big Three products were more aerodynamic than Studebakers? Puh-leeze; did you ever look at a 1951 Oldsmobile or Buick? Or a 1953 Mercury or Chrysler is more aerodynamic than a 1953 Studebaker? I haven't seen too many 1953 Chryslers running at Bonneville Speed Week through the years. :lol: BP

jnormanh
09-19-2012, 08:21 AM
Boy, it's gonna be a long evening if I have to counter everything in that post. So here's a few:

1. The Chrysler Hemi had 331 CID from the get-go in 1951, not 1955.

2. Studebaker's 4bbl 289 was available in 1956. The highest-horsepower 312 Ford in 1956 was the dual-quad 312 at 260 HP, although some sources say 265, but not 285. (When did Ford have a 285 HP 312, for that matter? The supercharged 1957 engine was rated at an even 300 HP. The 1956 Lincoln had a 368 CID engine rated at 285 HP, but it wasn't available in Fords and it wasn't 312 CID.)

3. Chevrolet's only V8 displacement in 1956 was 265. The 283, with or without fuel injection, wasn't available until 1957, a year after Studebaker's 289. And if you check out Page 8 of the March 2010 Turning Wheels, you'll note Studebaker Engine Engineer Harold Johnson confirming Studebaker had proposed 310 CID V8s running on test stands in May 1956.

4. Early 1950s Big Three products were more aerodynamic than Studebakers? Puh-leeze; did you ever look at a 1951 Oldsmobile or Buick? Or a 1953 Mercury or Chrysler is more aerodynamic than a 1953 Studebaker? I haven't seen too many 1953 Chryslers running at Bonneville Speed Week through the years. :lol: BP


1. You are correct, the 331 Hemi was available in 1951.

2. For 1957 a 312 ci, unblown 285 HP Ford was available. These are T-birds, but the 285HP was available across the lineup. http://www.supercars.net/cars/5352.html

3. Did I say the 283/283 Chevy was available before 1957? If so, my error. Studebaker never built a 310 ci car, so that's irrelevant.

4. Nor have you seen any stock-bodied Studebakers at Bonneville. They all have aero modifications, and that's just for drag coefficient. On high speed circle tracks, downforce is at least as important. If one cold tell by looking what works for aero, wind tunnels and engineers would not be necessary.

The bottom line is: There was no year that normally aspirated Studebakers had enough horsepower to be competitive.

BobPalma
09-19-2012, 09:16 AM
2. For 1957 a 312 ci, unblown 285 HP Ford was available. These are T-birds, but the 285HP was available across the lineup. http://www.supercars.net/cars/5352.html

3. Did I say the 283/283 Chevy was available before 1957? If so, my error.

4. Nor have you seen any stock-bodied Studebakers at Bonneville. They all have aero modifications, and that's just for drag coefficient. On high speed circle tracks, downforce is at least as important. If one cold tell by looking what works for aero, wind tunnels and engineers would not be necessary.

The bottom line is: There was no year that normally aspirated Studebakers had enough horsepower to be competitive.

2. As I understand it, Jeff, the discussion is about factory-installed, production line engines, which include the dual-quad 312 rated at either 260 or 265 HP, depending on the source, and/or the 300 HP supercharged 312. You could not order and take delivery of a factory-built 285 engine IF it required a "racing kit" to be installed after it left the factory, so it is not a production engine by any stretch.

3. Your statement was that, "By the time Studebaker had a 4bbl 289 available, Chevrolet had the FI 283." That means either Studebaker did not have a 4bbl 289 until 1957 OR Chevrolet had an FI 283 in 1956, both of which are wrong.

4. No stock-bodied Studebakers at Bonneville? I am not familiar enough with different Bonneville classes to discuss them beyond the hundreds of pictures I've seen of stock-bodied 1953/1954 C/K cars through the years. Some classes permit cones to be installed over the headlights for aerodynamics, but not all. There have been plenty of stock-bodied Studebakers out there with "regular" headlights, depending on the class.

Finally, "no year in which Studebakers had enough horsepower to be competitive?" How about 1956? Did Ford have enough horsepower to be competitive if their 1956 entries had been limited to normal production engines without a "racing kit?" To the point, it's doubtful a 312 engine rated over 225 HP was available factory-installed in 1956 Fords: Of three different sources I have here, only one mentions the 260 dual-quad engine, and it is listed as having the same production code as the 225 HP engine: P. This would imply that the 1956 260 engine was a 225 engine with yet another after-factory "kit," in that two different horsepower engines can't very well have exactly the same production-line engine code.

What if Studebaker had come up with a "racing kit" for the 1956 289 engine? If it's OK that Ford had a racing kit, why not Studebaker? What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander, right?...and wasn't Chevrolet's top horsepower in 1956 "only" 225?

And all this discussion precludes Studebaker ever campaigning 1956 Golden Hawks. With 275 HP before what would have certainly been the "racing kit" dual-quad Caribbean-carburetor setup and already having a whopping 380 ft/lb of torque with the base 4bbl, it had every possibility of being competitive in NASCAR in 1956. (Granted, the frame(s) would have had to be reenforced and then replaced after every race, but that wouldn't have been exclusive to Studebaker either.)

So, at least in 1956, the normally-aspirated Studebaker Golden Hawk certainly DID have the aerodynamics and horsepower to be competitive in NASCAR. That Studebaker didn't have either the money or inclination to do so at the Official Corporate Level is beside the point. SDCer / NASCAR historian Bob Coolidge has well-documented the efforts of some underfunded privateers who tried anyway, with limited success. BP

Jessie J.
09-19-2012, 11:28 AM
My point was what Studebaker could very cheaply and easily have done to make their products competitive in NASCAR and other forms of competition_ and also a lot more competive in the 50's race for sales and profits.
They chose what displacement and horsepower levels to limit their engines to. It was not any limitation that was inherent in their V-8 engines design.
They chose not to back even one independent NASCAR effort.
They ended up failing in the automotive business because of a long history of short-sightedness and poor business decisions reaching all the way back into the 1930's.

No one made them fail. And it was no one else's business decisions that was responsible for their failures, only their own out of date and 'bunkered' Corporate mentality, one which effectively marginalized and hamstrung any would be Studebaker 'Duntov's' and 'Mckellar's'.
The Studebaker V-8 never needed to be saddled with that problem prone McCulloch/Paxton stop-gap band-aid 'fix' in the first place.
Management chose to continue to manufacture their vehicles with an engine of untapped potential, 'spaghetti' frames, and to blindly ignore the infamous 'South Bend' rust stripe.
Bad Business decisions, every one of them.

jnormanh
09-19-2012, 11:57 AM
2.
So, at least in 1956, the normally-aspirated Studebaker Golden Hawk certainly DID have the aerodynamics and horsepower to be competitive in NASCAR.
[/B]

I'll take that, the '56 GH, as your best shot for a Studebaker which could have been competitive in NASCAR.
,
To compete in NASCAR, "stock" meant, among other things, that it had to be possible for an ordinary person to walk into a dealership and order a car configured like a NASCAR "stock" car. That means the '56 GH would have had to run with the single carb 352/275HP.

Seriously, Bob, do you think it could have run with the 354 Hemi of 340/355 hp? And, if so, why didn't some enterprising bright mechanic set one up and run it?

"What ifs" Don't count. What if Studebaker had built a 400 ci, 4-cam, 32 valve V8?

BobPalma
09-19-2012, 12:31 PM
I'll take that, the '56 GH, as your best shot for a Studebaker which could have been competitive in NASCAR.

To compete in NASCAR, "stock" meant, among other things, that it had to be possible for an ordinary person to walk into a dealership and order a car configured like a NASCAR "stock" car. That means the '56 GH would have had to run with the single carb 352/275HP.

Seriously, Bob, do you think it could have run with the 354 Hemi of 340/355 hp? And, if so, why didn't some enterprising bright mechanic set one up and run it?

Actually, they did. I don't have time to check with Bob Coolidge of Deland FL, but if you do, he can report the name and limited participation of at least one guy who ran a 1956 Golden Hawk in NASCAR. He may know of others by now as well. (Bob could be contacted through his Post #9, above.)

At the time, Studebaker sure didn't have the money to pursue a factory team, of course, even if they wanted to.

My point about "what if" Studebaker had come up with a racing kit was to point out that Ford didn't consider their most powerful regular-production engine to be adequate to tackle NASCAR in 1956 without their "racing kit," so they should not get credit for offering a regular production engine they considered "enough" for stock car competition.

If Ford was allowed to compete with a "racing kit," then Studebaker should have been allowed to put a "racing kit" (dual quads) on a 1956 Golden Hawk without it being a regular, separate, production engine option. Of course, that's a moot point because they apparently never wanted to particpate in NASCAR in 1956.

Overall, my mission has been to successfully challenge your statement in Post #23: The bottom line is: There was no year that normally aspirated Studebakers had enough horsepower to be competitive.

In my opinion, that's been accomplished. BP

(S)
09-19-2012, 12:48 PM
At the time, NASCAR was the official body at Daytona Beach where several 56J's ran full out and broke many records. So, YES Studebakers did compete and WIN in NASCAR, even though they were not backed by the factory.

I have seen an official timing certificate certifying a 56J at over 152 MPH at Daytona in 1956. One of these days, I'll get a photo of it.


ding ding ding. Now you guys go back to your corners!

Son O Lark
09-19-2012, 12:57 PM
What are the weight comparisons between these competitors? Were there minimum weight limits in those days? Handling and chassis setups are just as important if not more so than a few horsepower. This is especially true on short tracks ,which the vast majority of tracks were in those days.

(S)
09-19-2012, 01:17 PM
Check this link, picture #6 looks kind of like a....


http://www.canadianracer.com/cne.asp

I found this link while looking for 1956 Nascar rules. Interesting read about the other classes, and what they could do with engines. I am pretty sure The US versions of the rules were similar to Canadas

jnormanh
09-19-2012, 01:24 PM
Overall, my mission has been to successfully challenge your statement in Post #23: The bottom line is: There was no year that normally aspirated Studebakers had enough horsepower to be competitive.

In my opinion, that's been accomplished. BP



Which year was that?

BobPalma
09-19-2012, 02:01 PM
Which year was that?

1956: The horsepower and potential was in the 1956 Golden Hawk, as you conceded in Post #26:

"I'll take that, the '56 GH, as your best shot for a Studebaker which could have been competitive in NASCAR."

(Or at least I think that's what you said, Jeff!) :cool: BP

jnormanh
09-19-2012, 03:30 PM
1956: The horsepower and potential was in the 1956 Golden Hawk, as you conceded in Post #26:

"I'll take that, the '56 GH, as your best shot for a Studebaker which could have been competitive in NASCAR."

(Or at least I think that's what you said, Jeff!) :cool: BP




Okay - Studebaker offers two carb option for the 56J. What's that then? Half way to the Caribbean engine, say 285-290HP?

And that will run with a 355HP Hemi?

Good try, Bob. But I don't think so.

But thanks for the courteous discussion....now if only Studebaker had Utzman twin cam heads for the 352....and a better crank....

R3 challenger
09-20-2012, 02:22 PM
One aspect of high speed racing that has not been discussed is total frontal area. That's not exactly the same as coefficient of drag. Studebaker cars, on average, were significantly narrower than most of the cars that raced in NASCAR or in other high speed venues. That's one of the reasons they have been so successful at Bonneville. Less frontal area requires less power to push it through the air, all other things being equal. When you get up over 150 mph, it takes very large increases in engine power to overcome wind resistance, and that resistance is determined, in part, by frontal area.

So a Studebaker would likely have required less power say, at speeds over 150 mph than many other competing cars. Studes usually weighed less, too, but that's not nearly as important as frontal area at high speeds. Weight is the enemy in drag racing, but not necessarily when you want to go over 150 mph. When we raced Ron Hall's R3 Avanti at Bonneville, we had a couple hundred pounds of lead shot in the spare tire well, along with two very heavy batteries in the trunk for traction. That didn't keep us from reaching speeds over 200 mph on slippery salt at an elevation of over 4,000 feet.

George

studeguy54
09-20-2012, 03:04 PM
Regarding Studebakers in NASCAR.....when I was at Daytona USA (at the Daytona International Speedway), back around 2000, The listing of records on the walls there included a '53 or '54 Studebaker which set a record in (I believe this is the correct name) Modified-Sportsman 300 in the early 60's, around 1963. The car was driven by LeRoy Yarborough (not related to Cale), and, I believe powered by a Ford. At that time, the Studebaker coupe body was VERY popular in that race and I can remember seeing the results of a race where the finishers were overwhelmingly Studebaker coupe bodies (with other engines, of course), which qualified them as "Modifieds" for that race.

Denny Foust

jnormanh
09-20-2012, 04:38 PM
One aspect of high speed racing that has not been discussed is total frontal area. That's not exactly the same as coefficient of drag. Studebaker cars, on average, were significantly narrower than most of the cars that raced in NASCAR or in other high speed venues. That's one of the reasons they have been so successful at Bonneville. Less frontal area requires less power to push it through the air, all other things being equal. When you get up over 150 mph, it takes very large increases in engine power to overcome wind resistance, and that resistance is determined, in part, by frontal area.

So a Studebaker would likely have required less power say, at speeds over 150 mph than many other competing cars. Studes usually weighed less, too, but that's not nearly as important as frontal area at high speeds. Weight is the enemy in drag racing, but not necessarily when you want to go over 150 mph. When we raced Ron Hall's R3 Avanti at Bonneville, we had a couple hundred pounds of lead shot in the spare tire well, along with two very heavy batteries in the trunk for traction. That didn't keep us from reaching speeds over 200 mph on slippery salt at an elevation of over 4,000 feet.

George


Wind resistance increases proportional to the square of the speed. Indeed it is wind resistance which limits the top speed of any car so long as adequate gearing is available. As someone once said: Top speed is wind versus horsepower. The wind always wins, horsepower determines when. Put another way: if a given car will run 100 mph with 100 horsepower, it will need 400 horsepower to run 200 mph.

nels
09-20-2012, 05:41 PM
I think what all this boils down to is this: If the factory really wanted to compete they could have and if doing so certain options would have been made available and other developements would have come forth, such as the 310 engine, tripower carbs etc. The 53 or Hawk body was absolutely more aerodynamic than any of the big three's offerings. This alone is/was a huge advantage and certainly would have made up for sizable HP differences. Studebaker really had no interest in NASCAR and money, what little they had at that time, would have been better spent elsewhere or so they reasoned.

jnormanh
09-20-2012, 06:46 PM
Sure....IF.....IF....IF Studebaker, Nash, Kaiser, could all have won NASCAR races and championships IF...IF...IF they had the desire and money.

But they didn't, so what's your point?

"The 53 or Hawk body was absolutely* more aerodynamic than any of the big three's offerings. This *alone* is/was a huge advantage and certainly would have made up for sizable HP differences."

Oh, baloney.

A 1953 Studebaker obviously did not have enough HP to compete in NASCAR regardless of drag coefficient, so, no, a 1953, 120 HP Studebaker could not, no way, have run with a 210 HP 1953 Hudson.

Bob Palma thinks a '56 GH might have. A question: what was the drag coefficient of a 275HP 56J versus a 355HP Chrysler 300B?

* Numbers count, guesses and wishful thinking don't.

(S)
09-20-2012, 07:10 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Mundy Pretty sure the 232 was the little engine that DID......

Chicken Hawk
09-20-2012, 07:22 PM
[QUOTE=You're claiming that a *stock* R1 Studebaker will run 1/4 miles within a second of a Ferrari Testarossa?

'scuse, me, but, as the saying goes: "I was born at night, but it wasn't LAST night."

Maybe an R1 will run mid 14s, but if do, it ain't stock.[/QUOTE]

I can't be quiet any longer. Sorry but this may be lengthy.

I don't know what we have to do to convince "supposedly" Studebaker people just how underrated the V 8 Stude engine is. To say Steve Doerschlag's R 1 is not legal is beyond me and not fair to Steve since this car has passed tech the last two years and I realize it was not torn down and everything checked but there's Richard Poe that ran his R 1 for several years and cleaned many more big blocks than cleaned him.

In fact I don't think Richard ever lost but one shoot out in all the years he ran at the PSMCDR. Again, his car passed tech every year and even though it was not torn down I think most know the car is legal just like Steve's is. And by Richard spending hours doing the little things that add up and make a difference, his car almost always turned the LOW 14's and under ideal conditions (weather, traction, etc.) made it into the high 13's MORE than once!

Peter Sant's R 2 Avanti with air and loaded weighing in at OVER 3900 pounds with him in it and turning in the high 13's and over 100mph along with Chuck and John's white R 2 Avanti doing the same thing, it is frustrating to hear some of the comments about our cars not being stock or legal. Peter, Chuck and John have spent HOURS tuning their cars also.

Steve's clone R 3 was not performing like it should and he discovered the supercharger was going to almost zero boost in high gear. He got that fixed but still was not doing as well as he thought it should. So he put on a new fuel pump, filters, checked the timing, tires, etc. and he ended up turning 13.20's at over 106 mph. He could have easily not done anything and kept running slower than its potential.

We got the feeling early on at Stanton that many thought the Studes were not legal and that's why in 2004 we volunteered the Tomato for complete certification by taking it a day early for Bob and Dan to certify it as STOCK.

The engine was checked with precision tools in checking the bore, stroke, heads, valve springs, cc's, cam, compression, intake, carb, etc., etc.

We had it certified again in 2010 with the clone R 3 engine. This one Bob Palma was there and had pictures in TW of some of the things they did.

The neat thing about that 2004 certification was that the BEST it had turned up to that time was 13.40 and after the certification, the next day it turned 13.301. Could have been due to better traction, weather, or something else but the fact it did pretty well quieted down the nay sayers.

I would venture to say that most of the cars at Stanton are not completely stock and I'm sure most have never volunteered for certification.

But some complainers are back again and probably the reason the Tomato was selected as one of the seven cars to be "heavy teched" out of 134 cars this year and again passed with zero problems. At this heavy tech George Krem volunteered the Wrapper to be heavy teched next year if they so desire.

What more can we do to prove our point? I guess nothing will convince some people no matter what. I would like to encourage Richard to bring his R 1 out of retirement to again put the fear into the big blocks running against a Stude NORMALLY aspirated.

Richard has built a '64 normally aspirated (not legal for Pure Stock) and it has only run the eighth so far with an 8.2 et at 85 mph. He has trouble launching without hopping, getting the T-10 to shift good, etc., and has not had time to sort out jetting, timing, etc., but I'll bet after he spends time fixing these problems so he can get into the fine tuning it will EASILY dip into the sevens and close to 90 mph in the eighth.

The supercharger will knock a full second off and I imagine if I ran the Tomato without the supercharger with re jetting it would definitely run in the 14's but not as good as Steve's or Richard's due to the R 2 heads with lower compression.

The Stude people running at Stanton get this power by hours of work experimenting and trying different things to see what helps and what does not. And the ones not running real good yet will if they stick with it and spend the time and getting help from the rest of us.

The first year I ran the '51 at the 1962 NHRA Nationals it turned 16.90 at almost 81 mph. Ten years later it ran a best of 15.4 @ almost 88 mph. Some of this was due to better tires, strip prep, etc., but the point is all the hours spent trying different things and all the little things add up. For example I found putting 25 pounds of air in the right air bag and 5 in the left improved traction and kept the car going straight instead of drifting to the left and left both tire patterns the same. This helped lower the et some. Just one example of experimenting.

Drag racing is NOT the only venue Stude has shown its potential which includes Tom Covington and soon to be, Jeff Rice, and too many others to mention or that I can think of off the top of my head.

Look at the Bonneville cars, the records set back in the early 60's, what Jim Lange, Dave Bloomberg, Dave Livesay, Greg Meyer, and others I don't recall at the moment have done.

What kind of proof do you need from a small independent company that produced only a minimal fraction of what the big three did?

There are faster cars at Stanton and we get beat by them but I think overall we win more than we lose. And in my opinion, winning the shootout is actually overrated. You are paired with a car that runs practically the same et as you do and there is a LOT of luck in winning the shootout. The race is usually won with the driver that has the best reaction time and the best 60' time. If you are lucky enough to dominate those two things, you will usually win your shootout.

You can't expect to just set your timing, jump into your daily driver and expect it to run to its potential.

I apologize for the length of this but it frustrates me that we spend all the time and expense (although I enjoy it immensely) and continually see comments degrading what has been proven by so many so often.

Off my soap box now.

Ted

SN-60
09-20-2012, 07:25 PM
Just for the sake of gab.....I believe everyone agrees that '56 was the only year Studebaker offered a car that would have a reasonable chance against the Chrysler 300's. The 'Jet Streak' package
that was contemplated by the factory for the 56J would have been a must ....with one addition ....the 352 replaced with the 374 (or bigger). But when You factor in the teething problems that the new Packard engine surely had......I envision several sleek 56J's 'parked' with blown engines, after perhaps putting on a good show early on in a NASCAR race.

jnormanh
09-20-2012, 08:30 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Mundy Pretty sure the 232 was the little engine that DID......


The record shows that Frank Mundy started 23 NASCAR races in Studebakers and won 3 times. (13%)

He then switched to Hudson, started 18 AAA stock car races and won 8 times. (44%)

After that he switched to Chrysler, started 16 times in AAA, won 8 times (50%)

After that he started 19 NASCAR races in a Dodge and won 6 times (32%)


Frank was one heckuva good driver. His overall win percentage is better than Richard Petty. Except when he drove Studebakers.

The Widkepedia info for Frank is way incorrect as it shows him winning only three times, the last time in 1951. His last win was June 17, 1956 at the Missouri State Fairgrounds a NASCAR convertible race.

BobPalma
09-20-2012, 10:15 PM
What Ted and George said. What this underscores, to some extent, is a danger of internet forums. I think I'm a pretty good wordsmith, but the following is difficult to ask diplomatically: Why do some people demonstrate how erudite and intellectual they want to appear by deliberately cutting down the very marque we all profess to love, warts and all?

Quite frankly, as Ted hinted, this intellectual masturbation gets a little old, seeing who can beat up on Studebaker the most and attract attention to themselves by appearing to be such an automotive genius, embodying a vast knowledge of Studebaker's deficiencies and all too willing to enlighten those poor souls who actually think Studebakers are doggone neat cars who did their level best to compete against enormous odds, even successfully every so often!

With that off my chest, the Original Poster asked if Studebaker could have won a NASCAR championship during any year in which Studebakers were in production, a perfectly legitimate question. The answer, as I'll demonstrate presently, is YES. That they never mounted a factory campaign to do so is beside the point; the basic equipment was at the ready, and that's what the original poster asked about.

Before long, though, we heard that "Studebaker's little V8 didn't have a ghost of a chance," and, "GM, Ford, and Chrysler had stock engines that made lots more horsepower," and "had better aerodynamics," (that one really floored me), and that we would need to "factor in the teething problems that the new Packard engine surely had," (which I assume would be the oil pump issue cured halfway through the 1956 model year and might have been cured earlier had the racers got a hold of it), and the definitive, unqualified conclusion, "The bottom line is: There was no year that normally-aspirated Studebakers had enough horsepower to be competitive."

Now let's zero in on 1956. The Studebaker Golden Hawk had a 352 cubic inch engine, only two cubic inches smaller than the 354 Chrysler hemi, as enlarged for 1956, and 'way more cubes than a 1957 Ford (312), Chevy (265), Plymouth (277), Oldsmobile (324), Pontiac (317), etc., etc. Yet the Golden Hawk had a shipping weight of only 3360 pounds, a narrower frontal area, and superior aerodynamics than any of them, any of them...unless you want to include Corvettes and Thunderbirds, which were generally not allowed to compete in NASCAR because they were considered 2-passenger sports cars.

Even if the Golden Hawk had been held to 352 cubic inches, the Jet Steak dual-quad high-performance kit already had part numbers in que and could be easily installed in the parking lot of any race track. The 1955 Caribbean 352 dual-quad engine was rated at 275 horsepower with 8.50:1 compression ratio, whereas the 1956 Golden Hawk single-quad 352 was rated the same, presumably due to the compression ratio being bumped to 9.50:1 for 1956. The stock 1956 Golden Hawk 352 was rated at 380 ft/lb of torque, too.

May we assume, for the sake of discussion, that the Jet Steak dual-quad kit would have added a modest 10 HP and 10 ft/lb of torque to the Golden Hawk 352, bumping its HP to 285 and its torque to 390? That's conservative, but we'll go with it so nobody thinks I'm being overly optimistic.

The highest-performance 1956 Chrysler 354 hemi engine was rated at 355 HP with dual quads, solid lifters, and a host of other performance goodies that rendered it unsuitable for everyday street use. It had a whopping 405 ft/lb of torque at 3400 rpm. (For comparison, the 1956 Packard 374 V8 also developed 405 ft/lb of torque at a lower 2800 rpm, with hydraulic lifters and manners that enabled it to be fitted with air conditioning and quietly, smoothly, and unobtrusively driven to church by Aunt Mable for as long as she cared to do so.)

But the Chrysler 300 had a shipping weight of 4005 pounds and lousier aerodynamics than a Golden Hawk. The Chrysler's 355 horsepower hauling around 4005 pounds yields an important lb/hp ratio of 11.28:1. By contrast, if you'll accept 385 HP for a Jet-Streak package, dual-quad 352 Golden Hawk, that 385 HP is hauling around only 3360 pounds, for an important lb/hp ratio of 8.73:1; almost 30% less than the 300, and in a more streamlined body to boot!

So I say: The bottom line is, there was indeed at least one year during the 1950s in which Studebaker marketed a normally-aspirated "stock" car that could have competed favorably in NASCAR racing had the company dedicated itself to the mission to the extent that Karl Kiekhaefer dedicated himself to winning NASCAR races with Chrysler 300s, and that year was 1956.

Now I like 1950s Fords, too, especially 1955-1959 models. So I think I'll go over to the Y-block Ford forum and establish myself as liking those cars because I sincerely do, warts and all. Then, I'll demonstrate my erudite automotive knowledge by pointing out the oiling deficiencies of early Y-block Ford V8s. After all, some of those forum members may be laboring under the delusion that those engines are perfect, and we can't have that! It's the least I can do, and it will underscore how much I know. I'm sure they'll appreciate my pointing out a defect in the cars they and I profess to like, contributing something about which they may have no knowledge.

(And if you think I'm being rough, you guys ought to be glad Nelson Bove doesn't weigh in and unload, 'cause he would make me look like a piker!) :eek: BP

R3 challenger
09-20-2012, 10:19 PM
Amen to that, Ted and Bob. And BTW, even though my R3 was a bit "off its game" this year because of a problem with blower belts, it still turned a 12.78 and 112.62 against a moderate headwind...times in the upper 1/4 of all the well-prepared musclecars at the Pure Stock Drags.

Its easy to take verbal potshots...but it's just a bit harder to actually get one's car on a track and do something. We'd love to see more SDC members join us in promoting Studebakers and Studebaker engineering...on the track and off.

George

8E45E
09-20-2012, 10:23 PM
One cannot overlook the police car market in those years! I believe Studebaker was very successful in this area because of the performance of the 289 cubic inch engine.

Craig

SN-60
09-20-2012, 11:55 PM
To : Any overly sensitive fellow Studebaker lovers out there.....The original question concerned itself with Studebaker's winning of a NASCAR championship. And I believe we're talking about 1951-1964.
Short answer...with the weapons Studebaker possesed..and with what the competition had....NO WAY! (sorry) But instead of being glum, why not focus on the performance records that Studebaker DID set?
( Cross-Country, Indianapolis, Bonneville, Drag Racing nowadays, Etc.) Instead of dreaming, these are things one can look to and speak about with pride. CHEER UP BUCKY!!!!!

Son O Lark
09-21-2012, 11:01 AM
I'll still take an "underpowered" Studebaker with it's better aerodynamics and decent chassis over the BIG THREE anyday. A lot of those NASCAR tracks were dirt anyway and would have wasted excessive horsepower. A very good driver in an "underpowered" race car will drive circles around a lesser driver in a big heavy race car with more horses. You can compare cars all day but put David Pearson in a Studebaker and look out!

trnstrtrk
09-21-2012, 11:11 AM
To : Any overly sensitive fellow Studebaker lovers out there.....The original question concerned itself with Studebaker's winning of a NASCAR championship. And I believe we're talking about 1951-1964.
Short answer...with the weapons Studebaker possesed..and with what the competition had....NO WAY! (sorry) But instead of being glum, why not focus on the performance records that Studebaker DID set?
( Cross-Country, Indianapolis, Bonneville, Drag Racing nowadays, Etc.) Instead of dreaming, these are things one can look to and speak about with pride. CHEER UP BUCKY!!!!!


Since this discussion includes, based on the above comment, the 1951 NASCAR season then Studebaker was for sure in the hunt and a factor that year in NASCAR. The # 23 Studebaker single car team owned by W. Perry Smith, the Studebaker dealer in Columbia, SC used the following drivers over the season, Frank Mundy, Mike Klapak, Cotton Owens and Perry himself. They successfuly battled Hudsons, Oldsmobiles, Chryslers and all other makes that year. Whether there was any support from the factory I do not know but assume there was not any. A photo of the race car in Perry's dealership show room window was printed in The Studebaker News following their first win which took place at the Columbia Speedway in Columbia, SC. Perhaps by publishing this photo the corporation gave some moral support at least. This team was for that era as good as any other team fielding a car or cars in NASCAR. There is no speculation about the 1951 NASCAR season and what a Studebaker might have accomplished.

On a side note, only two of Frank Mundy's 1951 wins were in a Studebaker. He won one race in 1951 in an Oldsmobile.

sweetolbob
09-21-2012, 11:23 AM
To : Any overly sensitive fellow Studebaker lovers out there.....The original question concerned itself with Studebaker's winning of a NASCAR championship. And I believe we're talking about 1951-1964.
Short answer...with the weapons Studebaker possesed..and with what the competition had....NO WAY! (sorry) But instead of being glum, why not focus on the performance records that Studebaker DID set?
( Cross-Country, Indianapolis, Bonneville, Drag Racing nowadays, Etc.) Instead of dreaming, these are things one can look to and speak about with pride. CHEER UP BUCKY!!!!!

Ed

That's very well stated. When the little guys try to mix it up with the Big Dogs, it always comes down to money which they don't have much of.

As soon as they hire a great driver or come up with a great race team the Big Guys will just hire them away. As always development costs mucho bucks and they again get left in the dirt.

Winning a race or two can happen but to sustain that for an entire season to win a championship is difficult at best.

Nothing wrong with, as you describe, enjoying the fruits of individual accomplishments.

Bob

Studewannabe
09-21-2012, 12:00 PM
No,probably not.
Blame it on our Heavenly Father for giving us Hemi's

63larkr1
09-21-2012, 07:40 PM
ďYou're claiming that a *stock* R1 Studebaker will run 1/4 miles within a second of a Ferrari Testarossa?

'scuse, me, but, as the saying goes: "I was born at night, but it wasn't LAST night."

Maybe an R1 will run mid 14s, but if do, it ain't stock.Ē

I need to comment on this. You donít know what youíre talking about. I spent years working on my car and making hundreds of passes down the track and I never lost a shoot out in the September PSMCDR or any other pure stock drag race with the exception of the one and only spring race they had at Stanton. I spent the time to learn all I could about my car.
The core Studebaker drag racers that race pure stock are truly a team. We help each other and learn from each other. Racers that do well are the ones that take the time and effort to learn their cars and how to get the most out of them.
I suggest to you that just because you canít do something, that does not mean others canít do it either.
Richard