PDA

View Full Version : So if the 259 has 185 horse ,what is torque output ?



14x7
11-26-2013, 09:09 PM
Anyone know the torque of the 259 ,185 horse? Thanks

greyben
11-26-2013, 09:57 PM
The '55 President 259 was rated 185hp @ 4500rpm with 258 lb. ft of torque @ 2800rpm

StudeRich
11-27-2013, 01:40 AM
Goes to show ya what a little bit of Stroke will do for you, a '57 to '64 289 puts out a whopping 305 Ft. Pounds of Torque! :!:

bezhawk
11-27-2013, 09:26 AM
The supercharged 57 - 58 Golden Hawks were only rated @ 333 ft lbs. The 56 Golden Hawks were 380 ft lbs . Torque is what gets things in motion Horse Power is what sustains motion. Nobody would bad mouth something "new and improved" in the 50's. especially if they were paid by advertisers. Truth is the 57 was slower in every way from the 56's.

Dan Timberlake
11-27-2013, 11:39 AM
I think the added torque is due to the extra 30 cubic inches, not so much that the lever is longer.

1 ft-lb per cubic inch, plus or minus a little, is about what is usually claimed for normally aspirated street engines.

One standard "formula" for HP blends rpm (power strokes per minute, so N, or rpm/2 for 4 stroke engines) , piston area (A) , stroke (L), and something call Brake Mean Effective Pressure (P in the formula, but BMEP when used as a separate and very useful engine parameter).
http://www.engineersedge.com/engine_formula_automotive.htm
The bore and stroke all get squished together as displacement, with no extra credit or penalty for a "long" stroke or BIG bore.

Formula 1 and NASCAR are both up over 200 psi BMEP.

BMEP is what I hope to improve when I play with ports, cams, carbs, ignition curves, etc.

PackardV8
11-27-2013, 02:58 PM
As Dan said, it's seldom-to-never about stroke length. The 289" Stude with smaller bore/longer stroke and the 283" Chevy with larger-bore-shorter-stroke were usually rated about the same horsepower and torque.

Stude 225hp@4500 RPMs and 305#/ft @ 3000 with 8.5 compression
Chevy 230hp@3800 RPMs and 300#/ft @ 3000 with 9.5 compression

jack vines

t walgamuth
11-27-2013, 04:11 PM
As Dan said, it's seldom-to-never about stroke length. The 289" Stude with smaller bore/longer stroke and the 283" Chevy with larger-bore-shorter-stroke were usually rated about the same horsepower and torque.

Stude 225hp@4500 RPMs and 305#/ft @ 3000 with 8.5 compression
Chevy 230hp@3800 RPMs and 300#/ft @ 3000 with 9.5 compression

jack vines

If the studey motor matches the 9.5 compression ratio I bet the torque goes up significantly.

Jessie J.
11-27-2013, 04:21 PM
With raised compression and a cam change, into R-1 territory, comparable to the 283's 'Vetts optional engines.

studegary
11-27-2013, 04:43 PM
If the studey motor matches the 9.5 compression ratio I bet the torque goes up significantly.

Maybe I am missing something. Please explain how a one point increase in compression will make the torque go "up significantly".

PackardV8
11-27-2013, 10:08 PM
It won't

R1 10.25 compression single 4bbl - 240hp@4500 RPMs and 305#/ft@3000 RPMs

Corvette 9.5 compression with 2x4bbls 245hp@5000 RPMs and 300#/ft@ 3800 RPMs.

jack vines

2R2
11-27-2013, 10:38 PM
Speaking of horsepower, did you ever notice that from 1957 to 1964 a regular 4BBL 289 was always rated at 225 horsepower? This is despite the fact that the compression ratio changed through the years, carbs changed from WCFBs to AFBs, etc.

Dan Timberlake
11-28-2013, 07:20 AM
Changing the text in the brochures and ads cost more than the engine changes??

The marketing group were trying to catch the ladies with cool interior fabrics, and the guys with free verse poetry about sporty thoughts and feelings?

sweetolbob
11-28-2013, 08:32 AM
I can appreciate the fact we are discussing differences here but aren't we using published numbers by the manufactures not real world numbers. I'd be hard pressed to do a serious research study based on what was published during those times.

Just as an example http://corvettes-musclecars.com/gallery2/v/al_corvette/1967+Corvette+L88+427-430HP/

Just sayin', Bob

PackardV8
11-28-2013, 09:36 AM
FWIW, bob, the PSMCDR strip times correlate very closely to Studebaker's published R-series horsepower ratings. However, this is only applicable to those engines tuned to a gnat's knees by Richard, Ted, et al. The typical 225hp V8, R1, R2 magazine tests of that era indicated the Studebaker and big three regular production engines as supplied to customers did not produce anything like the published gross rating.

To your example, later, when the muscle car era got in full production, the rated horsepower of the top big block Chevys, Mopar hemis, Ford Boss, etc, were sometimes lower than actual output. That's never been any secret and shouldn't cast doubt on the horsepower ratings of the normal production engines. On the dyno at the factory, that's what they put out. As installed in the car and as delivered, well, that's another story.

Remember the thread a while back about the R2 Lark tuned up by Hot Rod Magazine and they got it to actually deliver the 289 hp it was supposed to have? They used too much ignition advance and it wouldn't have been safe at full throttle on a hot day. That's why customer engines were so lame.

Another part of the story - when the GTO came out, Pontiac actually furnished magazines with cheater test cars with super-tuned 421" engines. These were rocket ships, but when the customer 389" came out, they were bog-slow by comparison. Ford, Mopar and other GM divisions figured out the scam and during the muscle car era, test cars were not representative of what was being sold.

jack vines

Dan Timberlake
11-29-2013, 01:12 PM
................
Another part of the story - when the GTO came out, Pontiac actually furnished magazines with cheater test cars with super-tuned 421" engines. These were rocket ships, but when the customer 389" came out, they were bog-slow by comparison. Ford, Mopar and other GM divisions figured out the scam and during the muscle car era, test cars were not representative of what was being sold.

jack vines

==========
If only Jim Wangers had worked for Studebaker.
http://www.angelfire.com/nb/shawny13/Cardriver.html

StudeDave57
11-29-2013, 01:18 PM
So here's a question-

When the 'BIG' six was removed from my 2R16A StudeBus, and a '57 259 dropped into it's place~ how much housepower and tourqe was gained?

At a later date I'll ask about what gains can be made using StudePower in said bus.
She needs brakes and a few other odds and ends first!!!



StudeDave '57 :cool:

PackardV8
11-29-2013, 02:20 PM
When the 'BIG' six was removed from my 2R16A StudeBus, and a '57 259 dropped into it's place~ how much housepower and tourqe was gained?

The Commander six 245" most years was rated:
102 hp @ 3200 RPMs and 205#/ft @1800 RPMs

The 259" 2-bbl most years was rated:
170 hp @ 4500 RPMs and 260#/ft @ 2800 RPMs.

For most of us, it's not even close. The V8, even it's least-powerful post-55 offering, was the choice. Some older farmers who grew up without syncromesh trannies preferred the 1800 RPM torque peak of the big six, since it meant less shifting.

And despite what some of those farmers might have believed, the Commander six was not more economical. My granddad and dad both owned several Studebaker trucks. The more powerful V8 engine, when they drove it, got the same mileage as the Champion or Commander. When I drove the V8, that's another story.

jack vines